Pre-Action Discovery in Defamation Cases: An Overview

When confronted with a potential defamation action, a critical stage that can significantly shape the trajectory of the case is pre-action discovery.

This process can involve obtaining relevant documents from the potential defendant, before formal proceedings are initiated.

It helps the plaintiff ascertain if there is a viable cause of action to pursue.

However, navigating the legal intricacies surrounding pre-action discovery in defamation cases can be challenging.

The Purpose of Pre-Action Discovery

The primary purpose of pre-action discovery is to assist a potential plaintiff who believes they may have a cause of action, but lacks specific details or evidence to substantiate their claim.

It can be particularly useful in defamation cases, where certain details may only be accessible to the potential defendant.

The Legal Framework

The Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC), specifically Order 26A rule 4, governs pre-action discovery in Western Australia for documents in the “custody, power or possession” of a potential defendant.

This rule provides that pre-action discovery can be ordered if the court is satisfied that the applicant may have a right to obtain relief from the court against a person, but can't ascertain certain details to initiate a proceeding.

Threshold for Pre-Action Discovery

The threshold for pre-action discovery is set high to prevent abuse of process.

As established in the case of Kelbush Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] WASCA 14, the applicant must show they may have a right to relief, not merely a suspicion or speculative claim.

The test is an objective one and requires more than a mere assertion, conjecture, or suspicion.

Case Law Guidance

Several key cases provide further guidance.

In Waller v Waller [2009] WASCA 61, it was held that there must be some tangible backing or objective foundation that takes the existence of the cause of action beyond a mere allegation, suspicion or assertion. The applicant 'must demonstrate more than mere assertion, conjecture or suspicion, but does not have to positively establish the existence of a cause of action. What the applicant must produce is evidence showing that he, she or it may have a cause of action'.

In McCarthy v Dolpag Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 106, it was emphasised that being wrongly subjected to an order for pre-action discovery can be a serious invasion of privacy.

In Kelbush Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] WASCA 14 it was held there must be evidence objectively indicating - beyond the mere assertion, conjecture or suspicion of the applicant - that all facts necessary to give rise to a right to curial relief may be able to be established.

Balancing Act

Courts have to perform a delicate balancing act in pre-action discovery applications.

They must weigh the potential invasion of privacy and the oppressive nature of the order against the applicant's need for information to substantiate their claim.

As such, courts exercise caution and restraint in ordering pre-action discovery.

A Closer Look: BWS v ARV (No 2) [2021] WASCA 62

In BWS v ARV (No 2) [2021] WASCA 62, the plaintiff provided several pieces of evidence to substantiate their claim that they might have a substantive case against the defendant. These included details about their relationship with the potential defendant, the nature of alleged defamatory statements, and the reasoning behind their belief that the potential defendant was the source of these statements.

The parties were formerly married and had been involved in acrimonious proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia (paragraph 5). The plaintiff was also engaged in separate proceedings before the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (IRCS) involving a trust dispute (paragraph 5).

The plaintiff provided evidence of specific statements made in the IRCS proceedings that they considered to be defamatory and damaging to their personal life and affairs (paragraph 7). These included allegations about the plaintiff's religious practice, responsibilities as a parent, professional conduct, and personal and financial management.

The plaintiff believed that these defamatory statements were based on comments made by the potential defendant to one or more of the other parties in the IRCS proceedings (paragraph 8). The plaintiff's affidavit detailed the reasons for this belief, including their previous marital relationship with the potential defendant and the lack of other potential sources for the information contained in the defamatory statements (paragraph 9).

The court noted that while the plaintiff was able to present a logically consistent argument supporting their belief that the potential defendant had provided the defamatory information to the other parties (paragraph 44), the evidence did not go beyond this belief to directly establish the nature and content of the alleged communications between the potential defendant and these parties (paragraph 51).

This left the court to consider whether the plaintiff's belief that the potential defendant may have published defamatory statements about them was sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under Order 26A rule 4(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) that the plaintiff may have a cause of action against the potential defendant (paragraph 52).

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s belief, while logically consistent, did not meet the threshold for pre-action discovery as set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court and interpreted in case law. The plaintiff was not able to provide the necessary evidence of the nature and content of the alleged communications between the defendant and the other parties in the IRCS proceedings. Therefore, the court determined that the plaintiff’s belief alone was not enough to establish that they may have a cause of action against the appellant for defamation.

Key Take-Aways

  • Pre-action discovery can be a potent tool for potential plaintiffs in defamation cases. However, the need to protect individuals from unnecessary invasion of privacy means the threshold for obtaining such orders is high.

  • Familiarity with the rules and case law governing pre-action discovery can ensure a more strategic approach to potential defamation actions.

Cases mentioned in this blog post:

  • BWS v ARV (No 2) [2021] WASCA 62

  • Kelbush Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] WASCA 14

  • Waller v Waller [2009] WASCA 61

  • McCarthy v Dolpag Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 106