Munsie v Dowling (No. 7)

The case of Munsie v Dowling involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The dispute centred around allegations made by the defendant in a blog post and social media posts that the plaintiff claimed were defamatory. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, who was unrepresented, faced a second application from the plaintiff to strike out the defence due to non-compliance with the rules governing pleading defences in defamation proceedings. This included the inclusion of evidence in the defence and reliance on reasons for judgment contrary to the Evidence Act.

The court had to determine whether the defendant should be allowed to re-plead and if the scandalous and irrelevant allegations made by the defendant warranted refusal of leave to re-plead. The defendant had previously failed to comply with the court’s judgment on the first application to strike out the defence. The court considered the defendant's failure to adhere to procedural rules and the impact of the scandalous and irrelevant allegations on the proceedings. Given these factors, the court concluded that the defendant should not be permitted to re-plead.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the defendant's application to amend the defence. The court found that the defendant's failure to comply with the procedural rules, coupled with the making of scandalous and irrelevant allegations, justified the refusal of leave to re-plead. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the rules in defamation proceedings and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process. This decision underscored the consequences for unrepresented litigants who fail to comply with procedural requirements and make improper allegations.