Palace Films Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1448

Palace Films Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1448

Although the conduct concerning the first plaintiff's status was less than satisfactory, the Court was not persuaded on the solicitor correspondence and the circumstances of the defamation proceedings to stay the second and third plaintiffs' claims. The defendants' concerns were adequately met by ordering the first plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings at its suit, with a self-executing order that the second and third plaintiffs pay those costs if the first plaintiff did not pay within 28 days after agreement or assessment. Leave to file the final statement of claim was granted without imposing costs as the price of amendment, and apportionment of earlier costs orders...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the First Plaintiff's Claim; Application for Stay and Leave to File Final Statement of Claim
Outcome
First plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the proceedings at its suit; stay refused; leave granted to the second and third plaintiffs to file the final statement of claim; earlier apportionment left for assessment.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'co Plaintiffs' 'apportionment of Costs Between Multiple Plaintiffs' 'stay Pending Payment of Costs' 'leave to File Amended Pleading']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'defamation'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'co Plaintiffs' 'apportionment of Costs Between Multiple Plaintiffs' 'stay Pending Payment of Costs' 'leave to File Amended Pleading']

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

Defamation Proceedings / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the First Plaintiff's Claim; Application for Stay and Leave to File Final Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the prosecution of the second and third plaintiffs' claims should be stayed pending payment of costs ordered against the first plaintiff." 'Whether the second and third plaintiffs should have leave to file the final statement of claim only on terms as to costs.' 'Whether earlier costs orders against "the plaintiffs" should be apportioned by the court or left to a costs assessor.' "What costs order should be made following dismissal of the first plaintiff's claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the conduct concerning the first plaintiff's status was less than satisfactory, the Court was not persuaded on the solicitor correspondence and the circumstances of the defamation proceedings to stay the second and third plaintiffs' claims. The defendants' concerns were adequately met by ordering the first plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings at its suit, with a self-executing order that the second and third plaintiffs pay those costs if the first plaintiff did not pay within 28 days after agreement or assessment. Leave to file the final statement of claim was granted without imposing costs as the price of amendment, and apportionment of earlier costs orders...

Court Disposition

First plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the proceedings at its suit; stay refused; leave granted to the second and third plaintiffs to file the final statement of claim; earlier apportionment left for assessment.

Orders

  • ["That the first plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings at the suit of the first plaintiff, including the costs of the defendants' notices of motion filed 18 and 19 August 2011 and the plaintiffs' notice of motion filed 2 September 2011." 'That those costs be paid as agreed or assessed and that the...