Wallis & Ors v Wallis

The defendant, John Robert Wallis, sought to further amend his defence in defamation proceedings brought against him by six plaintiffs, Arthur William Wallis, John Carruthers Ray, Bruce Jackson, Timothy David Wallis, Terence Arthur Jackson, and Kimberley Brian Ray. The plaintiffs, all members of the "fellowship of Christian believers known as the Brethren," alleged that the defendant defamed them through a letter published in February 1998. The plaintiffs claimed that the letter implied they had engaged in immoral activities with women and young girls, which they sought to prove as defamatory. The defendant sought to amend his defence to include alternative imputations, arguing that the letter referred to the Brethren's practice of disassociating from members who violate their rules and the community's perception of such practices.

The court considered whether the defendant could plead alternative imputations different from those alleged by the plaintiffs. The court found that while the defendant could plead alternative meanings, they had to be similar to the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs and had to identify a defamatory act or condition. The court held that the proposed alternative imputations were either not defamatory or substantially different from the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs. The alternative imputations did not identify specific defamatory acts or conditions attributed to the plaintiffs, thus failing to meet the requirements of pleading a proper defence.

The court disallowed the defendant's application to further amend his defence, stating that the proposed alternative imputations were not permissible as they did not sufficiently identify defamatory acts or conditions. The court also noted that the particulars provided did not adequately support the proposed alternative imputations. Consequently, the defendant was not allowed to plead the alternative imputations, and the application was dismissed.