Rothe v Scott

The plaintiff, Rothe, brought an action against Scott for defamation. Scott pleaded justification as a defence. Rothe applied to strike out Scott’s defence on the basis that the particulars pleaded were manifestly inadequate. The Court was required to decide whether the particulars provided by Scott were sufficient to enable Rothe to respond to the defence of justification. The Court considered whether the particulars provided by Scott were sufficient to enable Rothe to respond to the defence of justification. The Court found that the particulars were manifestly inadequate because they did not provide sufficient detail to enable Rothe to respond to the defence. The Court also considered whether Scott could provide further and better particulars, but found that it was unlikely that Scott could provide sufficient particulars to enable Rothe to respond to the defence.

The Court struck out Scott’s defence of justification and ordered the parties to attend for mediation. The Court found that the particulars provided by Scott were manifestly inadequate and that it was unlikely that Scott could provide sufficient particulars to enable Rothe to respond to the defence. The Court considered the principles applicable to striking out a defence on the basis of inadequate particulars and found that the particulars provided by Scott did not meet the required standard. The Court also considered the potential for further and better particulars, but found that it was unlikely that Scott could provide sufficient particulars to enable Rothe to respond to the defence.