Moir v Flint

In the case of Moir v Flint, the plaintiff, Moir, sought to amend her defence to include certain imputations as part of a Polly Peck defence. The defendants, Flint, objected to the proposed amendments. The legal issues before the court were whether the defence of fair comment only applies if it responds to the plaintiff's imputations or permissible variations thereof, and whether the defendants were required to plead the substance of the comment. The court also needed to determine whether an extension of time for further particulars of republication was warranted.

The court found that the difficulty in applying the principles of defamation often arises, as identified by Gleeson CJ in Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The court held that the requirement for specificity in pleadings is a matter of degree and should be resolved by considerations of practical justice. The court rejected the plaintiff's submission that the imputation did not represent the final distillation of the sting, as the word "truth" in context connotes the requisite knowledge and intention. The court also found that the plaintiff's objection to the imputation in the defence failed as it did not express the precise act or condition asserted of or attributed to the plaintiff. However, the court did agree with the plaintiff's submission that the imputation in the defence did not express the precise act or condition asserted of or attributed to the plaintiff.

The court further held that it was not the function of the court on an interlocutory application to resolve matters of that nature. The defendants should be refused leave only if their pleading is untenable or manifestly groundless. The court found that this was not the case here and rejected the plaintiff's objection to the imputation in the defence.

The court also found that the defendants were not required to plead the substance of the comment. It was sufficient for the defendants to plead the particulars of justification for the imputation in the defence. The court granted the defendants leave to amend their defence to include the Polly Peck imputations. The court also granted the defendants an extension of time for further particulars of republication, as the matter turned on its own facts.

In conclusion, the court held that the defendants were not required to plead the substance of the comment and that it was not the function of the court on an interlocutory application to resolve matters of that nature. The court granted the defendants leave to amend their defence to include the Polly Peck imputations and an extension of time for further particulars of republication.