Lanser v Madigan

The case of Lanser v Madigan involved a dispute between the two parties over allegations of defamation. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Lanser, sought damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant, Madigan, which were published in a newspaper article. The defendant, in turn, filed a cross-claim against the plaintiff, alleging defamation in relation to statements made by the plaintiff in a television interview.

The court had to determine whether the defences raised by the defendant were sufficiently particularised. Specifically, the court examined whether the defence of substantial truth was adequately pleaded and whether the defendant had met the requirements of particularisation in their defences. Additionally, the court considered the admissibility of evidence pertaining to parliamentary privilege and the validity of the cross-claim as a cause of action. The court was also tasked with determining whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs against the defendant.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant's form of pleaded defences did not provide sufficient clarity to enable the plaintiff to effectively respond. The court held that the defences as pleaded were lacking in particularisation, particularly regarding the defence of substantial truth. Consequently, the court ruled that the defendant had not successfully pleaded the defence of substantial truth. Furthermore, the court found that the cross-claim did not constitute a cause of action as it failed to adequately plead a defamation claim. The court also determined that evidence related to parliamentary privilege was not admissible. As a result, the court dismissed the defendant's cross-claim and ordered the defendant to pay costs to the plaintiff.