Barach v University of New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1054

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Barach v University of New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1054 Hearing dates: 31 July 2013 Decision date: 31 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Parts of Amended Defence be struck out. Particulars to be provided. Catchwords: PLEADINGS - objectionable form - no question of principle. Legislation Cited: - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: - Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Cth), Re Minister for; ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; 186 CLR 622 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Dr Paul Randall Barach (Plaintiff) The University of New South Wales (First Defendant) Professor Raphael Hilary Grzebieta (Third Defendant) Assoc Professor Andrew McIntosh (Fourth Defendant) David Michael Ward (Fifth Defendant) Professor Richard Henry (Sixth Defendant) Harold Karaka (Seventh Defendant) Lori Mooren (Eighth Defendant) Representation: Counsel: T.D. Blackburn SC, M.A. Friedgut (Plaintiff) D.R. Sibtain (First Defendant) B.N. Burke (Sol) (2nd to 6th and 8th Defendants) Solicitors: Harmers Workplace Lawyers (Plaintiff) Ashurst Australia (First Defendant) Banki Haddock Fiora (2nd to 6th and 8th Defendants) File Number(s): 2010/136384

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1In 2010 the plaintiff, Dr Barach, commenced proceedings against the University of New South Wales ("the University") and other persons for defamation, and against the University only for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The proceedings arise out of the circumstances surrounding his appointment and then dismissal from an academic post at the University. 2As is often the case with defamation proceedings, there have been a number of substantial interlocutory skirmishes to date and refinements to the pleadings. As an indication of the size and scope of the pleadings, it should be noted that Dr Barach's second amended statement of claim identifies eighteen publications that he alleges defamed him. The University's defence pleads a number of matters, including truth. The particulars of truth are in excess of 150 pages long. As I will explain, there is a significant dispute about the adequacy and relevance of some of the matters asserted. 3The matter has come before me following a referral from the Defamation List Judge. The matters upon which I am asked to rule are various complaints made by Dr Barach concerning the form of the particulars provided in the University's defence. The only practical way to deal with these complaints is to hear the parties and rule on each one individually.