Wookey v Quigley

The matter of Wookey v Quigley before the court was an application by the plaintiff, Wookey, to strike out the defendant's statement of defence in a defamation action. The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the imputation pleaded by the defendant as an alternative meaning could be characterised as a less injurious meaning that was not substantially different from the meaning alleged by the plaintiff. The court was also required to determine whether a person who authorises republication could be held liable for damages.

The court found that the statement of defence should be struck out in its entirety but that the defendant would be granted leave to replead within a time fixed by the court. The court held that the defendant's statement of defence did not provide a valid defence to the defamation claim. The court found that the imputation pleaded by the defendant as an alternative meaning was not a less injurious meaning that was not substantially different from the meaning alleged by the plaintiff. The court also found that a person who authorises republication could be held liable for damages.

The court ordered that the statement of defence be struck out in its entirety but granted the defendant leave to replead within a time to be fixed by the court. The court found that the defendant's statement of defence did not provide a valid defence to the defamation claim and that the defendant should be given an opportunity to amend their defence. The court ordered that the statement of defence be struck out in its entirety and that the defendant be granted leave to replead within a time to be fixed by the court.