S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

In the case of S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, the appellant, DJ S, challenged a decision made by a Master that allowed the respondent, Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, to amend its defence to include a plea of justification in response to defamation allegations. The dispute centred around promotional content broadcast by the respondent that implied DJ S was a suspect in a murder investigation. The legal issues revolved around whether the plea of justification was adequately supported by particulars and whether it was based on objective facts that could justify reasonable grounds for suspicion, without breaching the repetition rule.

The court held that the plea of justification required the respondent to plead the facts that justified the reasonableness of the grounds for suspicion, rather than merely the evidence that might establish those facts. The respondent's plea did not adequately address the appellant's claim that there were reasonable grounds to suspect him. Furthermore, the court found that the plea did not sufficiently address the objective reasonableness of the grounds for suspicion, as it did not detail the specific facts supporting the suspicion. The court also noted that the respondent's reliance on the existence of evidence did not suffice to establish the plea of justification.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed by the court. The interlocutory order permitting the respondent to amend its defence was set aside, and the specific paragraph of the defence was struck out. The court agreed with the reasons provided by Bleby J and supported the proposed orders, affirming that the plea of justification needed to be based on the objective facts justifying the suspicion, not just the existence of evidence that might establish those facts. This decision underscores the importance of a plea of justification in defamation cases being founded on concrete, objective facts rather than speculative evidence.