Saunders v Beckwith - [2019] SADC 109

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
SAUNDERS v BECKWITH & ORS
[2019] SADC 109
Judgment of His Honour Judge Dart
22 August 2019
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM DISTRICT COURT
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PLEADINGS - PARTICULAR PLEADINGS - DEFENCE
Defamation - pleas of justification - whether conduct rule applicable - fair comment - plaintiff seeks to strike out parts of Defence - Master declined to do so - no error in the Master's approach.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 104, r 117(2), referred to.
Gallagher v Destiny Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] WASC 475; John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock (2007) 70 NSWLR 484; Manock v Advertiser News-Weekend Publishing Co Ltd [2004] SASC 164; Sands v State of South Australia (2015) 122 SASR 195, considered.

SAUNDERS v BECKWITH & ORS
[2019] SADC 109
JUDGE DART:

This is an appeal from a Master who declined to strike out portions of two defences. One of the defences was that filed by the first defendant, the other by the fourth defendant.
The claim is one of defamation. As such, to some extent, the pleadings carry more significance than in other civil litigation. I am not convinced that the Master erred in dismissing the applications of the plaintiff. The appeal should be dismissed.
Pleadings-related issues in defamation matters
A defamation pleading dispute involves the normal rules of court in respect of pleadings, together with some pleadings issues unique to defamation. The first thing to note is that a pleading should not be struck out unless the provisions of Rule 104 are satisfied:
104—Court's power to strike out pleading
The Court may strike out a pleading in whole or part if the pleading—
(a)does not comply with these rules; and
(b)is an abuse of the process of the Court or prejudices the proper conduct of the action.
The rule provides the Court with power to strike out a pleading where two matters are established. First, there must be a failure to comply with the rules and, secondly, the failure must be such as to either be an abuse of process or prejudice the proper conduct of an action. There is also the provision in rule 117(2) which allows the Court to strike out a document if it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the Court. That rule does not properly arise and it is rule 104 that is the relevant source of the power the plaintiff says the Court should exercise.
As with any pleadings dispute, there is a reluctance to strike out a defence unless it is clearly without merit. In Gallagher v Destiny Publications Pty Ltd (No 2)[1] Kenneth Martin J was dealing with an application to strike out pleadings in a defamation matter. His Honour said:[2]
It is trite to observe…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saunders v Beckwith and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] SADC 109
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Saunders v Beckwith involved a defamation action where the plaintiff sought to strike out parts of the defendant's defence, specifically the pleas of justification, fair comment, and the conduct rule. The matter originated in the District Court of South Australia and was heard on appeal. The plaintiff contended that certain aspects of the defendant's defence were not properly pleaded, and thus should be struck out.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct rule, as well as the pleas of justification and fair comment, were properly pleaded in the defendant's response. The court had to determine whether the Master's decision to not strike out the contested parts of the defence was correct. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's defence was insufficiently particularised and did not provide enough detail to allow for an effective response. The court considered the requirements for particular pleadings in defamation cases and the extent to which the defence met those requirements.

The court found that the Master's decision was not in error. The judge held that the defence was adequately particularised, providing sufficient detail for the plaintiff to respond effectively. The court emphasised that the standard for particular pleadings in defamation cases is not overly stringent, and that the defence met the necessary requirements. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the conduct rule and the pleas of justification and fair comment were improperly pleaded. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Court was affirmed.

Orders