Ashworth aka Otto v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 008 685 407); Otto (aka Ashworth) v Gold Coast Publications Pty Limited; Otto v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 13

Ashworth aka Otto v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 008 685 407); Otto (aka Ashworth) v Gold Coast Publications Pty Limited; Otto v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 13

The proceedings involved sufficient common questions and very substantial overlap in justification particulars, witnesses and documents to satisfy r 28.5(a) UCPR, and the overriding purpose and court resource considerations in ss 56 and 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) strongly favoured the three non-jury defamation actions being heard at the same time. Any admissibility or evidence-use issues could be managed by the trial judge rather than by refusing a concurrent trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application Under R 28.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) for Three Proceedings to Be Tried at the Same Time
Outcome
Application granted in part: the three proceedings were ordered to be heard at the same time as non-jury trials, with evidence-use questions left subject to adjustment by the trial judge; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the consolidation application for 8 February 2018, but otherwise no...
Legal Topics
['consolidation or Concurrent Trial of Proceedings' 'case Management' 'justification Defence' 'non Jury Trial' 'interrogatories' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['consolidation or Concurrent Trial of Proceedings' 'case Management' 'justification Defence' 'non Jury Trial' 'interrogatories' 'costs']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application Under R 28.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) for Three Proceedings to Be Tried at the Same Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether three pending defamation proceedings should be consolidated or tried at the same time under r 28.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the proceedings involved sufficient common questions or overlap in transactions, witnesses, documents and justification particulars despite differences in publication dates and subject matter.' 'Whether considerations under ss 56 and 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) favoured hearing the proceedings together.' 'Whether evidence in one proceeding should stand as evidence in the others.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings involved sufficient common questions and very substantial overlap in justification particulars, witnesses and documents to satisfy r 28.5(a) UCPR, and the overriding purpose and court resource considerations in ss 56 and 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) strongly favoured the three non-jury defamation actions being heard at the same time. Any admissibility or evidence-use issues could be managed by the trial judge rather than by refusing a concurrent trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: the three proceedings were ordered to be heard at the same time as non-jury trials, with evidence-use questions left subject to adjustment by the trial judge; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the consolidation application for 8 February 2018, but otherwise no...

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 28.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the trial of proceedings 2016/221796, 2016/338258 and 2016/338264 are to be heard at the same time, subject to any adjustment by the trial judge, including any order that evidence in one trial be evidence in the...