Hanks v Johnston (No 2)

The case of Hanks v Johnston involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hanks, and the defendant, Johnston, relating to defamatory statements made by Johnston. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to amend the defendant's defence after certain paragraphs were struck out. The defendant sought leave to amend the defence, asserting an honest opinion defence based on paragraphs that were previously struck out. The court was required to determine whether the particulars provided by the defendant were capable of establishing that the opinion was honest and based on proper material.

The court examined the requirements of Section 31 of the Defamation Act 2005, which sets out the defence of honest opinion. The court also considered Rule 23.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, which governs the amendment of pleadings. The court needed to assess whether the particulars provided by the defendant were sufficient to establish the elements of an honest opinion defence, including that the opinion was based on proper material. The court considered the particulars in the context of the entire pleading and the evidence that might be led at trial.

The court found that the particulars provided by the defendant were not sufficient to establish the defence of honest opinion. The court held that the particulars did not provide enough detail to establish that the opinion was based on proper material. The court noted that the defendant had not provided any details about the material that formed the basis of the opinion, or how the opinion was formed from that material. The court found that the particulars were too vague and did not provide enough detail to establish the defence. The court refused the defendant's application for leave to amend the defence.

The court ordered that the defendant's application for leave to amend the defence was dismissed. The court noted that the defendant had an opportunity to provide further particulars, but had not done so. The court found that the defendant had not demonstrated that the particulars provided were sufficient to establish the defence of honest opinion. The court held that the defendant's defence remained struck out, and the matter proceeded to trial on the remaining issues.