MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SYDNEY AREA LIMITED & ORS v MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2003] NSWSC 601

MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SYDNEY AREA LIMITED & ORS v MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2003] NSWSC 601

The Court accepted that the presently named first defendant should be removed because its juridical status could not be established on the material, but ordered discovery directed to identifying the eight members of the relevant committee during the period of the alleged defamation. The Court declined to appoint Metropolitan Petar as a representative defendant under SCR Pt 8 r 13 because the nature of defamation liability required attention to the actual publishers and made such an order premature. The detinue and contempt allegations were not struck out immediately, but the plaintiffs would have to pursue them outside the present pleading structure if they persisted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings With Pleaded Detinue and Contempt Allegations / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning Discovery, Removal of the First Defendant, Representative Defendant, and Pleadings
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motion for discovery granted; first defendant removed from the proceedings; no representative defendant order made; other costs orders made and matter stood over.
Legal Topics
['juridical Status of Alleged Publisher' 'unincorporated Ecclesiastical Entity' 'discovery' 'representative Defendant Under SCR Pt 8 R 13' 'corporate Plaintiffs in Defamation' 'pleading Requirements']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'ecclesiastical Entities'] ['juridical Status of Alleged Publisher' 'unincorporated Ecclesiastical Entity' 'discovery' 'representative Defendant Under SCR Pt 8 R 13' 'corporate Plaintiffs in Defamation' 'pleading Requirements']

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 With Pleaded Detinue and Contempt Allegations / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning Discovery, Removal of the First Defendant, Representative Defendant, and Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand as presently named had juridical status or should be removed from the proceedings.' 'Whether discovery should be ordered against the second, third and fourth defendants to identify the persons comprising the entity previously sued as the first defendant.' 'Whether Metropolitan Petar should be appointed a representative defendant pursuant to SCR Pt 8 r 13 for the alleged tort of defamation.' 'Whether the corporate plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in defamation.' 'Whether the detinue and contempt allegations should proceed in the current amended statement of claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted that the presently named first defendant should be removed because its juridical status could not be established on the material, but ordered discovery directed to identifying the eight members of the relevant committee during the period of the alleged defamation. The Court declined to appoint Metropolitan Petar as a representative defendant under SCR Pt 8 r 13 because the nature of defamation liability required attention to the actual publishers and made such an order premature. The detinue and contempt allegations were not struck out immediately, but the plaintiffs would have to pursue them outside the present pleading structure if they persisted.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' motion for discovery granted; first defendant removed from the proceedings; no representative defendant order made; other costs orders made and matter stood over.

Orders

  • ["In relation to the plaintiff's notice of motion, orders 1, 2 and 3 therein were made." "As to the defendants' notice of motion filed on 30 August 2002, the first defendant as presently named was removed from the proceedings constituted by the present amended statement of claim, with the question of costs of that...