Ghosh v NineMSN Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 180

Ghosh v NineMSN Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 180

Time to seek leave to appeal was not extended because the proposed appeals had no real prospects of success. The grounds relied on by Dr Ghosh did not challenge the primary judge's principal bases for refusing leave to amend, namely failures to provide proper particulars of identification and publication required by UCPR rr 15.1 and 15.19. There was therefore no injustice in refusing the extensions of time and dismissing the summonses; the appeal in proceeding 2013/330096 was also incompetent because it concerned an interlocutory order and no leave to appeal had been granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Defamation Proceedings / Applications to Dismiss Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Filed Out of Time; Application to Extend Time
Outcome
Extensions of time refused; summonses seeking leave to appeal dismissed; appeal in proceeding 2013/330096 dismissed as incompetent; costs ordered against Dr Ghosh.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'dismissal of Incompetent Appeal' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'particulars of Identification and Publication in Defamation Claims' 'case Management and Proportionality']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'appellate Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders' 'dismissal of Incompetent Appeal' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'particulars of Identification and Publication in Defamation Claims' 'case Management and Proportionality']

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

Interlocutory Applications in Defamation Proceedings / Applications to Dismiss Summonses Seeking Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Filed Out of Time; Application to Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for filing summonses seeking leave to appeal from interlocutory orders.' 'Whether the proposed appeals had any real prospects of success.' 'Whether the appeal in proceeding 2013/330096 was incompetent because leave to appeal had not been granted.' "Whether the grounds of proposed appeal addressed the primary judge's principal reasons for refusing leave to amend the defamation pleading."]

Ratio Decidendi

Time to seek leave to appeal was not extended because the proposed appeals had no real prospects of success. The grounds relied on by Dr Ghosh did not challenge the primary judge's principal bases for refusing leave to amend, namely failures to provide proper particulars of identification and publication required by UCPR rr 15.1 and 15.19. There was therefore no injustice in refusing the extensions of time and dismissing the summonses; the appeal in proceeding 2013/330096 was also incompetent because it concerned an interlocutory order and no leave to appeal had been granted.

Court Disposition

Extensions of time refused; summonses seeking leave to appeal dismissed; appeal in proceeding 2013/330096 dismissed as incompetent; costs ordered against Dr Ghosh.

Orders

  • ['In proceeding 2013/282150: Refuse an extension of time for the filing of the amended summons seeking leave to appeal.' 'In proceeding 2013/282150: The amended summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'In proceeding 2013/282150: The applicant pay the costs of the first, second and third respondents of their...