Dragan Markisic & Anor v USA & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1010

Dragan Markisic & Anor v USA & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1010

The plaintiffs had not relevantly complied with the directions made on 8 August 2006 to answer the second defendant's request for particulars, and their refusal to do so obstructed the advancement of proceedings and prevented the second defendant from knowing the case it had to meet concerning the alleged conspiracy. The second defendant's motion was not an abuse of process, and orders for particulars, costs and a stay were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion by the Second Defendant Seeking Particulars and Consequential Orders
Outcome
The second defendant's Notice of Motion was granted; the plaintiffs were ordered to provide particulars, pay costs of the motion, and the proceedings were stayed until compliance.
Legal Topics
['particulars' 'non Compliance With Directions' 'stay of Proceedings' 'civil Conspiracy Allegation' 'costs of Motion']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['particulars' 'non Compliance With Directions' 'stay of Proceedings' 'civil Conspiracy Allegation' 'costs of Motion']

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 / Notice of Motion by the Second Defendant Seeking Particulars and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide the particulars sought by the second defendant by letter dated 10 August 2006.' "Whether the plaintiffs had complied with the directions made on 8 August 2006 to respond to the second defendant's request for particulars." "Whether the second defendant's Notice of Motion was an abuse of process." "Whether the proceedings should be stayed and costs ordered because of the plaintiffs' non-compliance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs had not relevantly complied with the directions made on 8 August 2006 to answer the second defendant's request for particulars, and their refusal to do so obstructed the advancement of proceedings and prevented the second defendant from knowing the case it had to meet concerning the alleged conspiracy. The second defendant's motion was not an abuse of process, and orders for particulars, costs and a stay were appropriate.

Court Disposition

The second defendant's Notice of Motion was granted; the plaintiffs were ordered to provide particulars, pay costs of the motion, and the proceedings were stayed until compliance.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs provide the particulars sought by the second defendant by letter dated 10 August 2006, on or before 29 September 2006.' 'The plaintiffs pay the costs of the second defendant of this motion.' 'The costs of the motion are assessed and payable forthwith in the sum of $2000.' 'The proceedings against...