Moir v Flint

In the case of Moir v Flint, the plaintiff, Katherine Moir, brought a defamation action against the defendants, John Flint and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, regarding statements made in a radio broadcast. The defendants sought to justify their statements as true or to rely on a Polly Peck plea, arguing that the plaintiff had misled the radio host, Paul Murray, and that she had sold her story to Channel 7 for financial gain. The plaintiff applied to strike out parts of the defendants' defence, arguing that it was either manifestly groundless or prejudicial. The court, McClure J, considered the application, focusing on whether the words complained of were capable of supporting the imputations made in the defence. The court found that while some parts of the defence could be remedied, others were not supported by the words complained of and needed to be struck out. Specifically, the court struck out paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 4.1 of the defence, allowing the defendants leave to amend their pleadings to address the deficiencies. The court emphasised that the defendants needed to clearly and fully plead their case, particularly in relation to the financial motivations of the plaintiff and the specific misrepresentations made. The outcome of the case was that certain parts of the defendants' defence were struck out, but they were granted leave to amend their pleadings to address the court's concerns.