Watpac Australia Pty Ltd v the North Queensland Newspaper Company Limited

The plaintiff, Watpac Australia Pty Ltd, sued the defendants, The North Queensland Newspaper Company Limited and Terry Butts, for defamation. The alleged defamatory article was published by the defendants in the Townsville Bulletin on 25 September 1995. The defendants sought to have the plaintiff's reply struck out or amended, alleging that it was inadequate and would prejudice the fair trial of the action. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's reply sufficiently set out the material facts on which it relied to support its pleadings, particularly in relation to the defendants' defence of good faith and fair comment.

The court found that the plaintiff's reply was adequate. It noted that pleadings in defamation actions typically do not require setting out the evidence to establish matters put in issue. The plaintiff's reply put in issue the questions of "good faith" and "fair comment" relied upon in the defence and provided particulars of how and why the plaintiff alleged an absence of "good faith" or "fair comment". The court held that the particulars in the reply were sufficient to join issue with the allegations in the defence and that the pleadings as a whole defined the issues with sufficient clarity for the trial. The court rejected the argument that the reply was unintelligible or failed to distinguish between the defendants, finding that the reply adequately addressed the general issues raised by the defence and did not put either defendant at a disadvantage.

The court further held that the allegation of malice in the reply was appropriately made and did not constitute a pleading in terms of the statute. The particulars of malice, including the allegation that the defendants believed the matter to be untrue or were recklessly indifferent to its truth or falsity, were relevant and could be a material step in establishing the issue of malice. The court found that the reply adequately raised the issue of malice and that the defendants would be able to address it at trial.

The court dismissed the application to strike out the reply with costs, finding that the plaintiff's reply was adequate and sufficient in particularity.