S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd concerned a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, a media company. The plaintiff sought to limit the scope of cross-examination by the defendant on the issues of justification and qualified privilege, and to require the defendant to be dux litis on these matters. The court was required to consider the principles guiding its discretion to depart from the usual course of evidence at trial, particularly in light of the clearly defined issues in the pleadings and the parties' awareness of the allegations against each other.

The court identified that the plaintiff bore the burden of proof on several substantive issues, and found that these issues could not be separated from the cross-examination on justification and qualified privilege. The court concluded that it would not be prepared to make an order limiting the defendant's cross-examination as requested by the plaintiff, as such an order would not be consistent with the principles governing the course of evidence and addresses at trial. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application in its entirety, finding that the issues were adequately defined in the pleadings and that the parties were on notice of the allegations made against each other.

The court's decision highlights the importance of clearly defined pleadings and the parties' awareness of the allegations against each other in defamation cases. The court also emphasised the principle that the usual course of evidence at trial should not be departed from lightly, and that such departures should only be made in exceptional circumstances. The dismissal of the plaintiff's application serves as a reminder to parties in defamation cases to carefully consider the scope of their pleadings and the potential implications for the course of evidence at trial.