Sherman v Lamb

In the case of Sherman v Lamb, the plaintiff, Sherman, sought damages from the defendant, Lamb, for defamation. The dispute was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The defendant applied to strike out the amended statement of claim or, in the alternative, specific paragraphs of the statement of claim. The application was made after the matter was set down for trial. The central legal issues were whether the court should grant leave to strike out the pleadings, whether the key allegations in the statement of claim constituted a breach of an implied undertaking to the Federal Circuit Court to use documents and information solely for Family Court proceedings, and whether judgment should be granted or specific paragraphs struck out.

The court considered the application made after the matter was set down for trial, the absence of prejudice to the defendant, and the plaintiff's right to a fair trial. The court found that the plaintiff had not breached any implied undertaking by including key allegations in the statement of claim. The court also noted that there was no prejudice to the defendant in allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the amended statement of claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application, denied the request to strike out the pleadings or specific paragraphs, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court also granted the plaintiff leave to file a further amended statement of claim and the defendant leave to amend her defence in response to the further amended statement of claim. The trial of the proceeding was ordered to be conducted by a judge alone under section 21 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).

The final orders were that the defendant's application filed on 3 August 2021 was dismissed, the defendant was to pay the plaintiff's costs of that application on the standard basis, the plaintiff was granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim, the defendant was granted leave to amend her defence in response to the further amended statement of claim, and there was no order as to costs of the plaintiff’s application filed on 6 August 2021. Additionally, the trial was to be conducted by a judge alone under the relevant statute.