Webb v Commonwealth of Australia
Case
•
[2021] FCA 1215
•7 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Webb v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCA 1215
[2021] FCA 1215
7 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Webb v Commonwealth of Australia involved a defamation claim brought by the applicant, Gayle Webb, against the Commonwealth of Australia. The applicant sought to replead her statement of claim after the respondent moved to strike it out for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and likely causing prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's statement of claim should be struck out under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and if so, whether the applicant should be granted leave to replead.
The court found that the applicant's statement of claim did not identify the specific matters she complained of, when such matters were published and to whom, or demonstrate that any actionable publication occurred within the 12 months prior to the commencement of the proceedings. The statement of claim also failed to plead the defamatory imputations alleged to be carried by the matters complained of. The court considered the respondent's submissions that the applicant's pleadings were likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceedings and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court also took into account the applicant's unfamiliarity with the rules of pleading and the drafting of a statement of claim, and the potential for the proceedings to be used as a platform for ventilating generalised grievances.
In light of these considerations, the court granted the respondent's application to strike out the applicant's statement of claim. However, the court also granted the applicant leave to replead, as there was an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in the statement of claim. The guiding principle in determining whether to grant leave to replead is doing what is just, taking into account the position of both parties and the need to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of public and private resources.
The final orders of the court were as follows: the applicant's statement of claim filed on 3 May 2021 was struck out pursuant to r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); the applicant was granted leave to replead the cause of action struck out in order 1 above, to be filed and served by 4pm on Thursday 4 November 2021; and the applicant was to pay the costs of the respondent to be agreed or assessed.
The court found that the applicant's statement of claim did not identify the specific matters she complained of, when such matters were published and to whom, or demonstrate that any actionable publication occurred within the 12 months prior to the commencement of the proceedings. The statement of claim also failed to plead the defamatory imputations alleged to be carried by the matters complained of. The court considered the respondent's submissions that the applicant's pleadings were likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceedings and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court also took into account the applicant's unfamiliarity with the rules of pleading and the drafting of a statement of claim, and the potential for the proceedings to be used as a platform for ventilating generalised grievances.
In light of these considerations, the court granted the respondent's application to strike out the applicant's statement of claim. However, the court also granted the applicant leave to replead, as there was an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in the statement of claim. The guiding principle in determining whether to grant leave to replead is doing what is just, taking into account the position of both parties and the need to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of public and private resources.
The final orders of the court were as follows: the applicant's statement of claim filed on 3 May 2021 was struck out pursuant to r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); the applicant was granted leave to replead the cause of action struck out in order 1 above, to be filed and served by 4pm on Thursday 4 November 2021; and the applicant was to pay the costs of the respondent to be agreed or assessed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Standing
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
-
Specific Performance
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
McGrory v Horizon One Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 153
Cases Citing This Decision
12
McGrory v Horizon One Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2025] FCA 153
Webb v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3)
[2023] FCA 558
Cases Cited
29
Statutory Material Cited
4
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia
[2010] HCA 28
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia
[2010] HCA 28