David & Anor v Abdishou & Ors [2007] NSWSC 822

David & Anor v Abdishou & Ors [2007] NSWSC 822

The amendments were allowed because, although additional publications may constitute new causes of action in defamation, the proposed allegations concerned the same petition, the same nature of publication, and recipients in the same class as those already pleaded. Any new causes of action therefore arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing causes of action, so Civil Procedure Act 2005 s65 applied and no limitation question arose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment on Application to Amend Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Amendments allowed; no question of limitation arises; plaintiffs to pay half the defendants' costs for the day.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'amendment After Expiry of Limitation Period' 'publication of Defamatory Matter' 'separate Causes of Action for Each Publication' 'same or Substantially the Same Facts']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'amendment After Expiry of Limitation Period' 'publication of Defamatory Matter' 'separate Causes of Action for Each Publication' 'same or Substantially the Same Facts']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment on Application to Amend Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the further amended statement of claim to extend the dates of alleged publication and add particulars of publication.' 'Whether any new causes of action alleged by the amendments arose from the same or substantially the same facts as the existing causes of action for the purposes of Civil Procedure Act 2005 s65.' 'Whether a limitation issue arose from the proposed amendments.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments were allowed because, although additional publications may constitute new causes of action in defamation, the proposed allegations concerned the same petition, the same nature of publication, and recipients in the same class as those already pleaded. Any new causes of action therefore arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing causes of action, so Civil Procedure Act 2005 s65 applied and no limitation question arose.

Court Disposition

Amendments allowed; no question of limitation arises; plaintiffs to pay half the defendants' costs for the day.

Orders

  • ['The amendments should be allowed.' 'No question of limitation arises.' 'The plaintiffs should pay half the costs of the defendants today.']