Ray v Wallis

The Supreme Court of Western Australia was presented with an application by the plaintiffs, John Carruthers Ray, Bruce Jackson, Timothy David Wallis, Terrence Arthur Jackson, Kimberley Brian Ray, and Arthur William Wallis, against the defendant, John Robert Wallis, in a defamation action. The plaintiffs sought either to strike out certain parts of the defendant's defence or to obtain further and better particulars of the defence. The defendant had already provided particulars in response to a previous request for further and better particulars by the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the level of detail provided.

The legal issues before the court involved the adequacy of the defendant's particulars and whether they were sufficient to allow the plaintiffs to prepare a proper defence. The court had to determine whether the particulars provided by the defendant were adequate and specific enough to enable the plaintiffs to understand the case they would need to meet at trial. The court also needed to consider whether the particulars were necessary for the defence of justification and fair comment that the defendant intended to rely on.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that the particulars provided were specific enough to allow the plaintiffs to understand the precise allegations against them. The court noted that the defendant's defence was based on the concept of "guilt by association," where the plaintiffs were alleged to be responsible for the actions of the sect as a whole. The court held that the defendant needed to provide particulars that specifically linked the plaintiffs to the alleged defamatory conduct. The court found that the particulars provided by the defendant were deficient in specificity and did not sufficiently detail the plaintiffs' involvement in the alleged conduct. The court ordered that the defendant's answers be withdrawn and allowed the defendant to file a substitute set of answers that provided the necessary level of detail.

The court concluded by ordering that the defendant's answers to the plaintiffs' request for further and better particulars be withdrawn, with leave to file a substitute set of answers. The court set out a detailed procedure for the defendant to follow in preparing the substituted answers, including serving a minute of the proposed substituted answers on the plaintiffs, allowing the plaintiffs to object to the proposed answers, and attempting to resolve any differences between the parties. The court reserved the issue of costs for later consideration.