The Defendants, Dr. Charl de Wet (“Dr. de Wet”) and Dawn Johnson (“Johnson”), applied to strike the Plaintiff’s Action under Rule 4.31 and for Summary Dismissal under Rule 7.3. The Applications were scheduled together at a Rule 4.10 Case Conference.

The Action, which was commenced in 2011 by Shawn Jordan (“Jordan”), arose out of the breakdown of the relationship between Jordan and Johnson and the alleged publication of a letter written by Dr. de Wet in 2009 (the “Letter”). Dr. de Wet was Johnson’s psychologist and authored the Letter for the family law proceedings between Johnson and Jordan. Jordan alleged that the Letter was published outside of the family law proceedings, that it was false and defamatory, and that it tarnished his reputation and undermined his relationship with his children.

On the Rule 4.31 Application, the Court reviewed the Plaintiff’s history of inaction and failure to comply with the Rules, such as filing a reply to the Statement of Defence nearly five years after the deadline specified in Rule 3.33. Ultimately, the Court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that it resulted in real and significant prejudice to the Defendants. As such, the Application was granted, and the Action was dismissed.

Although the Action was dismissed for delay, the Court also considered the Summary Dismissal Application. The Defendants sought summary dismissal on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence that the Defendants had published the Letter outside the family law proceedings. The Court agreed, noting the heightened requirement under Rule 13.7(f) for particulars in pleadings in defamation actions, which Jordan failed to comply with. After considering the evidence, the Court granted the Summary Dismissal Application.