Martrat Pty Limited trading as Huxley Hill and Associates v Murphy

The case of Martrat Pty Limited trading as Huxley Hill and Associates v Murphy involved defamation proceedings that were set down for a five-day hearing in June 2020, initially scheduled for August 2019. The defendants sought an application in December 2019 to allow affidavit evidence at the trial. The plaintiffs offered to provide outlines of evidence or, alternatively, witness statements. The court had to determine the circumstances under which statements, affidavits, or outlines could be ordered in defamation proceedings, especially in light of the lack of provisions in the UCPR (rr 31.1 and 31.4) concerning outlines. Additionally, the court addressed case management issues, including a history of brinkmanship in relation to interlocutory argument, and the potential for ambush at the trial.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendants were entitled to affidavit evidence at the trial and, if not, what form the evidence should take. The court had to consider the timetable for statements and outlines and address the case management issues, including the long history of brinkmanship in relation to interlocutory argument and the potential for ambush at the trial. The court found that the defendants were not entitled to affidavit evidence at the trial, but the plaintiffs were required to serve signed witness statements intended to stand as their witnesses’ evidence-in-chief by 6 March 2020, with the defendants required to do the same by 10 April 2020. The court also required the defendants to provide a list of all outstanding complaints concerning the issues identified in paragraphs 1-10 of the defendants’ written submissions and any other pleading or particularisation issue arising from the plaintiff’s evidence.

The court issued several orders to manage the proceedings. The plaintiffs were required to serve signed witness statements by 6 March 2020, and the defendants by 10 April 2020. There was to be no provision for witness statements in reply except for witnesses the parties intended to call in reply. If any witness refused to provide a signed statement, a précis of each such witness’s expected evidence, signed by the solicitor for the party or such other person responsible for the drafting thereof, was to be provided. The defendants were required to provide a list of all outstanding complaints concerning the issues identified in paragraphs 1-10 of the defendants’ written submissions and any other pleading or particularisation issue arising from the plaintiff’s evidence by 13 March 2020. The proceedings were listed for further directions on 19 March 2020. The defendants were to advise the court if there were interlocutory applications requiring a ruling and whether the length of the hearing should be adjourned, shortened, or extended. If there was a need for argument or a further timetable for any reason, the parties had liberty to restore these proceedings to the Defamation List after 10 April 2020. The defendants were to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of this application, with liberty to apply.