Findlay v Grimmer [No 3]

In the matter of Findlay v Grimmer [No 3], the plaintiff sought relief for defamation, with the defendant invoking a statutory justification defence and an additional plea of bad reputation. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff argued that the statutory justification defence was unarguable and sought a strike-out of the defence. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that the plea of bad reputation was not adequately particularised, seeking its dismissal as embarrassing. The court was required to decide whether the statutory justification defence and the plea of bad reputation were sufficient or if they should be struck out.

The court examined the statutory justification defence and found that the defendant had properly pleaded this defence. The court noted that the statutory justification defence is a complete defence to defamation claims and does not need to be particularised further. Regarding the plea of bad reputation, the court held that while the plea was not fully particularised, it was not embarrassing enough to warrant a strike-out. The court found that the plea of bad reputation, although not fully detailed, provided sufficient information to allow the plaintiff to respond adequately to the defence. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to strike out the statutory justification defence and the plea of bad reputation.

The court's decision was grounded in the principles of pleadings and the requirement that defences be sufficient but not overly detailed. The statutory justification defence was deemed sufficient as it relied on statutory provisions that automatically justified the defendant's actions. The plea of bad reputation, while not fully particularised, was allowed to stand as it did not prejudice the plaintiff's ability to respond effectively. The court concluded that the defences were adequate and did not warrant a strike-out. No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the plaintiff's application.