Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 8) [2018] FCA 1995

Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 8) [2018] FCA 1995

The court determined that the issue of publication in the cross-claim could not be conveniently or properly severed from the other issues and denied the application for a separate trial; it also found sufficient grounds for ordering Charif Kazal to provide security for costs, given demonstrated access to funding and lack of prejudice from such an order.

Parties
First Applicant / Second Cross Respondent: Thunder Studios Inc (California); Second Applicant / First Cross Respondent: Rodric Marc David; First Respondent / Cross Claimant: Charif Kazal; Second Respondent: Adam Kazal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceeding / Decision on Interlocutory Applications for a Separate Trial and Security for Costs
Outcome
The applicants' application for a separate trial is dismissed; Charif Kazal is ordered to provide security for costs for the applicants' costs of the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
Separate Trial, Security for Costs, Publication, Damages, Qualified Privilege
Defamation Civil Procedure Separate Trial Security for Costs Publication Damages Qualified Privilege

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thunder Studios Inc (California)

First Applicant / Second Cross Respondent

Rodric Marc David

Second Applicant / First Cross Respondent

Charif Kazal

First Respondent / Cross Claimant

Adam Kazal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceeding / Decision on Interlocutory Applications for a Separate Trial and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a separate trial should be ordered for the issue of publication in the cross-claim
  2. 2 Whether Charif Kazal should be ordered to provide security for costs in respect of the cross-claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the issue of publication in the cross-claim could not be conveniently or properly severed from the other issues and denied the application for a separate trial; it also found sufficient grounds for ordering Charif Kazal to provide security for costs, given demonstrated access to funding and lack of prejudice from such an order.

Court Disposition

The applicants' application for a separate trial is dismissed; Charif Kazal is ordered to provide security for costs for the applicants' costs of the cross-claim.

Orders

  • The applicants' interlocutory application for a separate trial be dismissed.
  • The parties bring in short minutes as to the amount of security for costs that the first respondent / cross-claimant should provide and how and when that should occur.