Blake & Ors v Fox

Requests for further information under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 18 must be confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate for the stated purpose. Where the court has already determined the natural and ordinary meaning of words complained of, a party need not provide a further objective definition of those words to support a defence of honest opinion or truth. Existing pleadings may sufficiently identify the case to be met. A request cannot be used to reopen matters determined at a preliminary issue trial.

This was a costs and case management conference in a defamation claim and counterclaim. The defendant sought fuller answers to requests 17 to 23 concerning the meaning of racism and its relevance to the claimants’ defences of honest opinion and truth, and to the defendant’s claim for injunctive relief.

A preliminary issue trial before Nicklin J had determined that the natural and ordinary meaning of the relevant tweets was that the defendant was a racist, and that each publication was defamatory and an expression of opinion. The issue was whether further elaboration of that meaning was required in the pleaded cases.

1. The defendant’s application for fuller answers to requests 17 to 23 was dismissed.

2. Requests under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 18 and the Practice Direction must be strictly confined to information reasonably necessary and proportionate for the stated purpose. The court applied that approach, including the relevance of whether the alleged deficiency had prevented the requesting party from understanding or preparing its case.

3. The claimants had sufficiently identified the controversial statements relied upon in support of their case on serious harm. No further elaboration was necessary because the statements were already set out in the pleaded cases and their relevance was apparent.

4. Following the determination of meaning at the preliminary issue trial, no further objective definition of the word racist was required for the honest opinion or truth defences. The natural and ordinary meaning had already been determined by the court. The parties’ alternative elaborations represented their respective subjective positions, rather than competing objective meanings requiring further pleading.

5. The requests seeking clarification of the word’s use in the pleadings were therefore misconceived and unnecessary. The defendant was able to understand the case to be met from the existing pleadings. The application also sought, in substance, to revisit matters already argued before Nicklin J.