Wilson v Coxon [No 2]

In the matter of Wilson v Coxon, the plaintiff sought to sue the defendant for defamation. The dispute concerned the alleged defamatory imputations made by the defendant against the plaintiff, which were published in a media release. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made defamatory statements in a media release, which were intended to be read or heard by a significant portion of the public. The defendant, in turn, argued that the statements were true and justified, and that any harm caused was not as a result of the publication of the statements.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's media release contained defamatory imputations and, if so, whether those imputations were true or justified. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the defendant's abandonment of a particular plea in relation to the imputations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's plea of facts, which attempted to mitigate the damages claimed by the plaintiff, was a stand-alone plea that could be the subject of a strikeout application.

The court held that the defendant's media release contained defamatory imputations against the plaintiff, but that those imputations were not true or justified. The court found that the defendant had abandoned the plea in relation to the imputations, and that the plaintiff's claim was therefore not barred. However, the court also held that the defendant's plea of facts was a stand-alone plea that could be the subject of a strikeout application, and that it should be struck out. The court found that the plea of facts did not provide a directly relevant background context to the imputations, and that it did not relate to any aspect of provocation.

The court's decision was based on the principles set out in Burstein and other relevant authorities. The court held that the defendant's plea of facts was a stand-alone plea that did not provide a directly relevant background context to the imputations, and that it did not relate to any aspect of provocation. The court found that the plea of facts was therefore a futile and oppressive pleading, and that it should be struck out. Accordingly, the court made an order striking out paragraph 15 of the defendant's defence.