Lee v Keddie [2011] NSWCA 2

Lee v Keddie [2011] NSWCA 2

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not demonstrate any material factual error, error of principle, or House v R error in the primary judge's discretionary refusal of the late amendments. The proposed amendments raised very serious malice allegations that had been within the applicants' knowledge since 2006, were sought years after proceedings commenced, and would require the listed three week trial to be vacated; justice to both sides and the timely administration of justice supported refusal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Refusal to Allow Amendments to a Reply, and Application to Vacate a Listed Defamation Hearing
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal and the application to vacate the hearing were dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['pleadings Amendment' 'leave to Appeal' 'vacating Hearing Date' 'qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'discretionary Decisions']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['pleadings Amendment' 'leave to Appeal' 'vacating Hearing Date' 'qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'discretionary Decisions']

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; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Refusal to Allow Amendments to a Reply, and Application to Vacate a Listed Defamation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the defamation list judge's refusal to allow amendments to the reply pleading matters going to malice." 'Whether the February 2011 three week defamation hearing should be vacated.' 'Whether the primary judge made any material factual error, error of principle, or House v R error in exercising the discretion to refuse amendment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not demonstrate any material factual error, error of principle, or House v R error in the primary judge's discretionary refusal of the late amendments. The proposed amendments raised very serious malice allegations that had been within the applicants' knowledge since 2006, were sought years after proceedings commenced, and would require the listed three week trial to be vacated; justice to both sides and the timely administration of justice supported refusal.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal and the application to vacate the hearing were dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The application to vacate the hearing in the defamation list in February be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application."]