Petty v Zhao

The plaintiff, Petty, filed an action against the defendant, Zhao, for defamation. Petty claimed that Zhao defamed her by publishing a statement that she had stolen a car and had a criminal record. Zhao responded by filing a defence asserting that the publication was true, and therefore not defamatory. Petty then filed an application to strike out Zhao's defence, arguing that it was inadequate. The court had to determine whether Zhao's defence was sufficient and whether Petty's application to strike out the defence should be granted.

The court held that Zhao's defence was inadequate because it did not sufficiently plead a defence of contextual truth. The court noted that to successfully plead the defence of contextual truth, the defendant must provide specific and detailed evidence of the circumstances in which the statement was made. Zhao's defence was too vague and did not provide enough detail for the court to determine whether the publication was true in all the relevant circumstances. The court also noted that Zhao's defence did not address the specific allegations made by Petty. The court held that the application to strike out the defence should be granted and ordered Zhao to file a further amended defence within 14 days that particularised and pleaded, in proper form, any plea of contextual truth.

The court further ordered Zhao to provide particulars of each conversation with the plaintiff in which she asked him not to park in their driveway and the email sent by the plaintiff to the defendant to which she pressed "reply" for the purpose of publishing the matter complained of. The court also ordered Zhao to pay any costs thrown away by reason of the filing of the further amended defence and that costs were to be the defendant's costs in the cause. The reply was to be filed 14 days thereafter, and the matter was stood over to the Defamation List on Friday 28 November 2014.