Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 5) [2013] NSWSC 1650

Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 5) [2013] NSWSC 1650

Leave to re-open was refused because the plaintiffs had long been on notice that Born Brands' status as an excluded corporation was in issue, had ample opportunity to adduce evidence, and failed to do so. Granting leave would require an adjournment to allow the defendants to investigate and test the evidence, causing delay, additional costs and prejudice not adequately compensable by costs, contrary to the overriding purpose and guiding principles in ss 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages for Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Application by the First Plaintiff for Leave to Re Open Its Case to Adduce Evidence That It Was an Excluded Corporation Within S 9 of the Defamation Act 2005
Outcome
Leave to re-open refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Re Open Case' 'overriding Purpose and Guiding Principles' 'corporation Cause of Action for Defamation' 'excluded Corporation Under S 9 of the Defamation Act 2005']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['application to Re Open Case' 'overriding Purpose and Guiding Principles' 'corporation Cause of Action for Defamation' 'excluded Corporation Under S 9 of the Defamation Act 2005']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claim for Damages for Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Application by the First Plaintiff for Leave to Re Open Its Case to Adduce Evidence That It Was an Excluded Corporation Within S 9 of the Defamation Act 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first plaintiff should be granted leave to re-open its case to adduce evidence that it was an excluded corporation within s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005.' 'Whether granting leave would be consistent with the overriding purpose and guiding principles in ss 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' 'Whether the defendants would suffer prejudice requiring adjournment and further investigation if leave were granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to re-open was refused because the plaintiffs had long been on notice that Born Brands' status as an excluded corporation was in issue, had ample opportunity to adduce evidence, and failed to do so. Granting leave would require an adjournment to allow the defendants to investigate and test the evidence, causing delay, additional costs and prejudice not adequately compensable by costs, contrary to the overriding purpose and guiding principles in ss 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Leave to re-open refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to the first plaintiff to re-open its case to prove that it is an excluded corporation within s 9(2) of the Defamation Act 2005.']