Gribble v Essential Energy trading as Essential Energy

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Gribble initiated proceedings against Essential Energy trading as Essential Energy, asserting claims for defamation. The dispute centres on three publications made by the defendant that Gribble contends were defamatory. The case was before Justice Mortimer, who had to determine whether Gribble's second further amended statement of claim was sufficient to allow the proceedings to continue.

The primary legal issues revolved around the adequacy of Gribble's pleadings, specifically whether the statement of claim was sufficiently precise and clear to enable a fair response from the defendant. The court noted that the statement of claim was prolix and repetitive, with significant portions copied verbatim from other sources, including content generated by Generative AI. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not provided the full text of all three publications complained of and had confused the issue of republication. The court emphasised the necessity of proper pleading before a defamation claim could proceed.

Justice Mortimer held that the second further amended statement of claim did not meet the required standards. The plaintiff's reliance on Generative AI material was deemed inappropriate and the pleadings were struck out with leave to replead. The leave to replead was conditional, requiring the inclusion of the full text of the publications complained of and the exclusion of any Generative AI content. The court ordered the plaintiff to file a third further amended statement of claim by 28 September 2025. The matter was then stood over for directions on 2 October 2025, and the plaintiff was required to pay the defendant’s costs of the argument.