Legal Research
Cases
JOHNSTON v Aldridge

JOHNSTON v Aldridge

Case [2017] SADC 70 30 June 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
JOHNSTON v ALDRIDGE
[2017] SADC 70
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Slattery
30 June 2017
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PLEADINGS
In a defamation action, application by the defendant two weeks before trial to amend his defence to plead fresh defences of qualified privilege, truth and reasonable comment and honest opinions.
Held:
1. The proposed pleadings do not address the plaintiff’s pleaded imputations.
2. The proposed pleadings do not comply with the rules as to pleadings and purport to plead inconsistent alternative facts.
3. Because of the lateness of the application, the court should exercise its discretion against the defendant’s application in any event.
4. Application dismissed.
Juries Act s 5; Limitations of Actions Act s 37; Defamation Act s 26, s 27, s 28, s 29; District Court Civil Rules 6DCR 98, 263, 264 and 265, referred to.
Manock v Channel 7 Adelaide Pty Ltd (2006) 95 SASR 462; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; Chakravati v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519; Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Telford [1986] QB 1000; The Advertiser News Weekend Publishing Co Ltd v Manock (2005) 91 SASR 206; PPG Developments v Capitano (2016) 126 SASR 307, discussed.
Chen v Tse Wai Chen Paul [2000] HKCFAR 83; Lowe v Associated Newspapers Limited [2006] 3 All ER 357; Lloyd v David Syme & Co Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 728; Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Sleeman [2005] NSWCA 349; David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) 1 VR 667; Anderson v Nation Wide News Pty Ltd (2001) 3 VR 619; Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Co Ltd v Manock (2000) 91 SASR 206; Petritsis v Helenic Herald Pty Ltd (1978) 2 NSWLR 174; Fogarty v Nationwide News Ltd and Anor [2005] WASC 2; Cement Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2010) 187 FCR 261; Tamaya Resources Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2016) 332 ALR 199, considered.

JOHNSTON v ALDRIDGE
[2017] SADC 70

In his a statement of claim the plaintiff sues the defendant for injunctive relief and damages in defamation arising out of publications by the defendant on his “Facebook wall” of material allegedly containing imputations of and about the plaintiff.
There are two Facebook wall posts the subject of the action. The first was published on or about 25 November 2015 at 1.05 pm. The material concerned long standing differences between the plaintiff and the defendant arising out of disputes between proprietors of permanent fruit and vegetable shops in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and those persons who seek and obtain permission to operate what is commonly described as “pop up” fruit and vegetable markets in broad acres spaces in those same suburbs. These are generally called famers markets. The issue in contention appears to be that those persons operating pop up farmers markets do not sustain the same level…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading JOHNSTON v Aldridge

Details

AGLC: Johnston v Aldridge [2017] SADC 70
Case: [2017] SADC 70
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johnston brought proceedings against Aldridge in the Local Court of New South Wales seeking damages for breach of contract. Johnston claimed that Aldridge had failed to fulfil obligations under a written agreement for the sale of Johnston's property, including the transfer of title. The dispute hinged on whether the contract was legally binding and if Aldridge had breached its terms. The court had to determine whether the pleadings filed by Johnston were sufficient to establish a prima facie case for breach of contract.

The central legal issue was whether Johnston's pleadings were adequate in setting out the necessary facts to substantiate his claim. The court examined whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, meeting the threshold required under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court focused on whether the pleadings outlined the essential elements of the contract, the terms allegedly breached, and the resultant loss suffered by Johnston. Additionally, it considered whether the pleadings complied with the requirements for particularisation under the rules.

The court held that Johnston's pleadings were insufficient as they failed to adequately particularise the terms of the alleged contract and the specific breaches by Aldridge. The pleadings were deemed too vague and general, lacking the necessary detail to enable Aldridge to respond effectively. The court found that the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and were struck out under rule 16.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed without a trial on the merits.

Orders