a caution for all, page-14

You are again correct Jantimot, a lot of interesting facts should come out of such a court case, because if the statements by the defendant are true, then he is not guilty of defamation. The only way to prove one way or another is to provide facts, of which the defence will call for bucket loads.

Re-reading the court document, and having a hard look at this......
" Mr McCrae says that he was informed by Mr Holterman that the comments made by user “zzedzz” suggested that Mr McCrae had “attempted to mislead shareholders in [CuDeco] in various statements [he had made] in speeches or ASX releases”; Mr McCrae had attempted to “exaggerate the mining potential of [CuDeco] in pursuit of increasing the value of [Mr McCrae’s] shareholding”; Mr McCrae was “reckless in [his] management style” and “had contributed to a decline in the share price”.

As in those comments were in the opinion of Mr Holtermann, then this from Mr McCrae.....
"
Mr McCrae says at para 13 of his affidavit that he has conducted a basic search of the posts to the site that he has been able to access. He says that some of the statements are “defamatory and false” and they include:
(a) On 3 July 2013, the user alleged in a post [that] I was responsible for the fall in the share price [of CuDeco] by drafting [and] releasing a “shocking” letter to the Australian Stock Exchange;

(b) On 28 July 2013 the user suggested that I was undertaking in “dreamtime”;

(c) On 15 May 2014 that I had failed to make proper disclosure to the Australian Stock Exchange; and

(d) On 17 May 2014 that I had engaged in a “new blindfold technique” which was due to the overall copper percentage being poor."

The amount of evidence called for is going to be very large, including when Mr McCrae "knew" of certain facts regarding many aspects of the companies development over the last few years. It is another case that I highly doubt will go to court, just like the one against EMS never made it to court with the judge making orders in favour of EMS.