Milne v Ell

In the Federal Court, Milne brought a defamation case against Ell, who had allegedly made defamatory remarks about Milne. The dispute centred on several alleged defamatory statements made by Ell, with Milne seeking to establish the truth of these allegations through various legal procedures. The case involved an application by Ell to compel Milne to clarify certain remarks in his statement of claim and an application by Ell to strike out an ambiguous imputation. Additionally, Ell sought oral leave to interrogate the second defendant regarding a conversation that formed the basis of the first matter complained of.

The court was required to determine whether Milne should be compelled to further specify the remarks he claimed were defamatory and whether the imputation in question was ambiguous enough to warrant being struck out. Furthermore, the court had to decide if Ell was entitled to interrogate the second defendant about the conversation that Ell relied on in his defence.

The court found that Milne was not required to further specify the remarks in his statement of claim, as they were sufficiently detailed for the purposes of the proceeding. The court determined that the imputation in question was not ambiguous and thus declined to strike it out. However, the court granted Ell leave to interrogate the second defendant, finding that the conversation was relevant to Ell's defence and the matters in dispute. The court's decisions were based on the principles of pleadings, the nature of the alleged defamation, and the relevance of the conversation to the case.

The final orders of the court included a refusal to compel Milne to further specify the remarks, a refusal to strike out the imputation, and a grant of leave for Ell to interrogate the second defendant.