Zeccola v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1007

Zeccola v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1007

The pleadings against Mr Rosen assert only that he knew he was speaking to a journalist who would write an article, with no facts supporting any request or authorisation to publish in the sense required by Webb v Bloch liability; mere participation as a source and being quoted does not amount to joint publication liability. As such, the pleadings disclose no reasonably arguable case against Mr Rosen on the relevant principles, and the proceedings against him must be dismissed. Any amendment to plead original republication or publication would be statute-barred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application – Summary Dismissal of Proceedings Against Second Defendant
Outcome
Proceedings against second defendant (Mr Rosen) dismissed. Plaintiff's oral application to stay dismissal order pending amendment and interlocutory applications dismissed. Second defendant to have costs from 4 April 2014.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'summary Dismissal' 'joint Publication Liability' 'agency in Defamation' 'costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading' 'summary Dismissal' 'joint Publication Liability' 'agency in Defamation' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application – Summary Dismissal of Proceedings Against Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings against the second defendant (Mr Rosen) disclose an arguable case of joint publication liability under principles stated in Webb v Bloch' 'Whether liability as joint publisher extends to a source merely agreeing to be interviewed and quoted in an article' 'Whether the application for summary dismissal was made too late under the requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the pleading to sue Rosen for original publication or republication, or seek a stay']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings against Mr Rosen assert only that he knew he was speaking to a journalist who would write an article, with no facts supporting any request or authorisation to publish in the sense required by Webb v Bloch liability; mere participation as a source and being quoted does not amount to joint publication liability. As such, the pleadings disclose no reasonably arguable case against Mr Rosen on the relevant principles, and the proceedings against him must be dismissed. Any amendment to plead original republication or publication would be statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Proceedings against second defendant (Mr Rosen) dismissed. Plaintiff's oral application to stay dismissal order pending amendment and interlocutory applications dismissed. Second defendant to have costs from 4 April 2014.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings against Mr Rosen (second defendant) dismissed.' "Plaintiffs to pay second defendant's costs of the proceedings from 4 April 2014." "Plaintiff's oral application to stay the dismissal order pending further amendment and interlocutory applications dismissed." 'Matters for the second listing hearing to be...