Ghosh v Miller [2016] NSWSC 1574

Ghosh v Miller [2016] NSWSC 1574

Leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 was refused because the plaintiff had outstanding costs orders in favour of the Nine Interests, the earlier District Court proceedings concerning the same publications had been dismissed after 11 attempts to plead the matter appropriately, the publication was first published in 2013, the proposed pleading was in substantive part unintelligible, and any publication within time based on later views by persons who had read it earlier would be only technical and likely inconsequential.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Motion Filed 9 May 2016 Seeking Joinder, Treated as an Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Under S 23 of the Defamation Act 2005
Outcome
Proposed eighth defendant struck out; leave to commence proceedings against Nine Digital Pty Limited and Nine Network Australia refused; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the day only.
Legal Topics
['leave to Commence Further Defamation Proceedings' 'joinder' 'pleading Sufficiency' 'limitation Difficulties' 'costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Commence Further Defamation Proceedings' 'joinder' 'pleading Sufficiency' 'limitation Difficulties' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Motion Filed 9 May 2016 Seeking Joinder, Treated as an Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Under S 23 of the Defamation Act 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 to commence proceedings against Nine Digital Pty Limited and Nine Network Australia in relation to publications previously the subject of District Court defamation proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed Statement of Claim was sufficiently intelligible and substantial to justify leave.' 'Whether alleged Internet views in the last 12 months overcame time limit difficulties associated with the initial publication.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 was refused because the plaintiff had outstanding costs orders in favour of the Nine Interests, the earlier District Court proceedings concerning the same publications had been dismissed after 11 attempts to plead the matter appropriately, the publication was first published in 2013, the proposed pleading was in substantive part unintelligible, and any publication within time based on later views by persons who had read it earlier would be only technical and likely inconsequential.

Court Disposition

Proposed eighth defendant struck out; leave to commence proceedings against Nine Digital Pty Limited and Nine Network Australia refused; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the day only.

Orders

  • ['Strike out the proposed eighth defendant.' 'The plaintiff is, pursuant to s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005, denied leave to commence proceedings against Nine Digital Pty Limited and Nine Network Australia on the basis of the proposed Statement of Claim.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of today only."]