In Gribble v ESSENTIAL ENERGY trading as Essential Energy [2025] NSWDC 344T, the plaintiff, representing himself, filed a defamation claim against Essential Energy concerning three publications made by its employee, Mr Glenn Leman, to Ms Marie Schlosser of Greenwood Solutions:
- a phone call on 16 May 2024,
- a follow-up email on 17 May 2024, and
- Another phone call on May 20, 2024.
Filing a second further amended statement of claim (2FASOC) on 25 July 2025.
Essential Energy seeks to have the pleadings and imputations struck out and to deny leave to re-plead, arguing they remain defective despite multiple amendments. The plaintiff contends that his particulars are sufficient for the defendant to file a defence. The defendant has also flagged an application for a serious-harm determination under s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) following settlement of the pleadings. The court heard submissions from both sides and delivered reasons for its procedural orders.
Alleged Publications and Imputations
1. First publication – 16 May 2024 phone call
Alleged statements: Mr Leman told Ms Schlosser that the plaintiff was “challenging to work with,” unlikely to obtain a certified design without significant assistance, and incapable of understanding review comments without one-on-one help.
Imputations claimed:
- The plaintiff is difficult and uncooperative.
- Needs supervision to perform effectively;
- Was criticised covertly and unfairly;
- His conduct warranted a reputational warning.
- Was being considered for replacement; and
- Lacked support from Essential Energy.
2. Second publication – 17 May 2024 email
Content: In an email following the first call, Mr Leman repeated and expanded his remarks, calling the plaintiff “challenging to work with,” questioning his technical capability, offering staff support, and suggesting review by a competitor, Reg Latter Electrical (RLE).
Imputations:
- The plaintiff is challenging to work with.
- Technically incompetent without oversight;
- Inferior to competitors such as RLE, and
- Merely tolerating an ongoing reputational risk.
3. Third publication – 20 May 2024 phone call
Content: A further conversation allegedly reinforced earlier criticisms, prompting Greenwood to note that Essential Energy had raised similar concerns and that the plaintiff’s behaviour risked the reputation of Greenwood and Power Design & Energy NSW.
Imputations:
- The plaintiff fails to deliver work on time.
- Produces substandard work;
- His shortcomings were endorsed by a government authority (Essential Energy), and
- His conduct damaged the reputations of others involved.
Alleged Republication
The plaintiff further alleges foreseeable republication of the defamatory material by Greenwood Solutions to:
- RLE, justifying the plaintiff’s replacement;
- Other industry participants and consultants, and
- Greenwood’s own internal staff.
He argues Essential Energy is derivatively liable because republication was the natural and probable consequence of Mr Leman’s comments and was induced or encouraged by him, relying on authorities including Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331.
Overall
The claim centres on whether three limited communications between two individuals, and their alleged republication within the industry, conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff’s professional competence, conduct, and reliability. Essential Energy challenges the adequacy of the pleadings, while the plaintiff maintains he has sufficiently particularised his case.
Proper Pleading of Defamation Publications
Gibson DCJ explained that under UCPR r 15.19(1)(a), when a plaintiff sues for defamation, the statement of claim must clearly provide the exact words of the defamatory publication:
For written publications, attach the full text of the publication — a summary is insufficient.
For oral publications, such as phone calls, record the precise words spoken in full, including details of time, place, participants, and the conversational context.
Failure to do so can justify striking out the pleading, since the exact words and identities of speakers are essential for both liability and any defences (citing Lazarus v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (1985) 1 NSWLR 188).
In Gribble v ESSENTIAL ENERGY trading as Essential Energy [2025] NSWDC 344, while the plaintiff included the email publication, the oral statements were incomplete and appeared speculative. Gibson DCJ noted that the plaintiff seemed to be guessing rather than pleading verbatim conversations.
Pleading Republication
The plaintiff also alleged that Greenwood republished statements by Mr Leman to competitors and others in the “ASP3 contestable design community.”
Gibson DCJ reaffirmed that:
Republication only creates further liability if it is the natural and probable result of the original publication (citing Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 231 and other authorities).
The plaintiff must particularise each republication — identifying who said what, when, and to whom, as required by UCPR r 15.19(1)(a)–(b). It must also be clear whether republication is relied on as a new cause of action or only for damages, and why the defendant is said to be responsible for it.
Gibson DCJ further observed that any alleged financial loss appeared to relate to contracts tendered by the plaintiff’s company, not he plaintiff personally — an issue a repleading must address if the plaintiff repleads.
Orders and Consequences
In ordering the striking out of the current pleading entirely, Gibson DCJ described it as “hopeless” and riddled with errors. The plaintiff may, however, file one final amended statement of claim, but must
Provide the verbatim text of the alleged oral statements and
Remove all material generated by generative AI.
The court granted leave to replead by 28 September 2025, warning that failure to comply could result in a self-executing strike-out order.
Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.
Use and Misuse of Generative AI
Gibson DCJ published these reasons to highlight the misuse of Generative AI (Gen AI) in court filings — a growing problem in Australian courts.
Key points:
NSW courts have strict rules governing the use of Gen AI, as outlined in Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 (18 December 2024) and District Court General Practice Note 2 (effective 3 February 2025).
These require all parties — including self-represented litigants — to verify that all citations and authorities are real and accurately represented.
Although the plaintiff swore an affidavit claiming not to have used Gen AI, his pleadings referenced non-existent judgments falsely attributed to the presiding judge and other courts.
When questioned, the plaintiff eventually admitted using Gen AI.
The court compared this issue with other cases addressing AI misuse, such as:
Valu v Minister for Immigration (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95, where practitioners faced disciplinary risks;
Nikolic v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2025] VSCA 79 and Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2025] FCAFC 26, where courts ignored false AI-generated authorities; and
May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178, noting that the misuse of Gen AI by litigants in person is a growing challenge.
The judge supported the view that AI-generated false authorities should be excluded from judicial consideration to prevent their spread through AI training data. The judgment endorses the “robust approach” taken by Beach JA in Nikolic, rejecting such material outright.
Finally, the court suggested that one day the UCPR might add a requirement to verify the confirmation of non-use of Gen AI in pleadings.
Final Orders
- Second Further Amended Statement of Claim struck out; leave to replead by 28 September 2025, excluding all Gen AI content.
- Matter to return for directions on October 2, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
- Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the hearing.
In Gribble v ESSENTIAL ENERGY trading as Essential Energy [2025] NSWDC 344, Gibson DCJ struck out the plaintiff’s claim for failing to plead the alleged defamatory words and republications properly, and because parts of the pleading relied on AI-fabricated legal authorities. While giving the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend, the judgment serves as a warning against the unverified use of AI in legal documents.
Source: NSW Caselaw
Leave a Reply