Rothe v Scott (No. 2)

Rothe v Scott (No. 2) involved the plaintiff, Rothe, suing Scott for defamation. The case proceeded to a stage where the defence of justification had been struck out by the court. Scott sought to reinstate this defence concerning two of the three defamatory imputations alleged. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the defence of justification should be reinstated, considering the plaintiff's potential ability to provide particulars at a later stage after discovery, interrogatories, and subpoenas to unknown third parties. The court examined whether there were sufficient grounds to allow for the reinstatement of the defence, particularly since the plaintiff was required to provide particulars before any discovery could take place.

The court held that the longstanding legal principle required a defendant to provide particulars before seeking discovery. The court was not convinced that the plaintiff would be able to provide the necessary particulars at a future stage, given the current state of the pleadings. The court found that the repleaded particulars were insufficient, merely repeating the gist of the complaint and lacking any substantive detail. Additionally, the court noted there was no evidence of newly discovered material or other grounds warranting a second application for reinstatement. The application to reinstate the defence of justification was therefore refused.

The Court of Appeal found that the application to reinstate the defence of justification was without merit. The court's decision was based on the inadequacy of the particulars provided, the procedural requirements of the law, and the absence of any new evidence or justification for a second application. The court confirmed that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery before delivering particulars of the plea of justification. The final orders of the court were that the application to reinstate the defence of justification was dismissed.