McLachlan v Browne & Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; McLachlan v Brown & Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Craig McLachlan following the publication of articles about him in early January 2018. The proceedings have been re-listed today at the request of the defendants because they are in default of the Court's orders as to the filing of defences.

The proceedings were commenced on 1 February 2018. The first listing was on 16 March 2018. On that date, in each proceeding, the Court directed the defendants to file and serve their defence by 4 May 2018. An extension is sought to allow until 1 June 2018 for that to occur.

The defendants have put on affidavits explaining the steps that have been taken towards preparing defences and those matters have been addressed orally by Ms Barnett, who appears for the defendants.

For his part, the plaintiff has relied on an affidavit of Mr O'Brien, his solicitor, setting out the chronology of the proceedings to date and the anxiety suffered by the plaintiff while he awaits receipt of the delayed defences.

Mr Richardson, who appears for the plaintiff, has indicated that he would not oppose an order allowing the defendants until next Thursday to file their overdue defences on the basis that the matter would be listed next Friday for the defendants to show cause, if that has not occurred, why the matter should not proceed as if it were undefended. The plaintiff, however, opposes the extension sought until 1 June.

An aspect of the submissions put on behalf of the defendants that troubles me is that part of the explanation for the time taken suggests that the defence will include particulars of truth of imputations and proposed contextual imputations which, on the strength of what was said, may go well beyond the relatively limited scope of the matters reported in the articles.

Mindful of my obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), I am of the view that the position proposed on behalf of the plaintiff is reasonable and that those are the orders I should make.