AAMAC Warehousing & Transport Pty Limited v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 316

AAMAC Warehousing & Transport Pty Limited v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 316

The further stay and alternative interlocutory injunction were refused because the applicants did not demonstrate a serious question for determination on appeal. The material did not raise a serious question that Slattery J was wrong to find no serious case on malice for injurious falsehood; the applicants accepted they could not rely on the Fair Trading Act basis; and no cogent House v The King error or serious procedural fairness issue was identified in the discretionary procedural rulings or in the discharge of the ex parte orders for material non-disclosure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal and Alternative Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Notice of Motion After Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Equity Division Orders
Outcome
Further stay of orders refused; alternative interlocutory injunction refused; notice of motion otherwise dismissed except for orders already made; applicants to pay respondents' costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal' 'injurious Falsehood' 'malice' 'material Non Disclosure on Ex Parte Application' 'discretionary Procedural Decisions' 'prescribed Information Provider']
['appeal Practice and Procedure' 'injunctions' 'torts' 'fair Trading' 'defamation'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal' 'injurious Falsehood' 'malice' 'material Non Disclosure on Ex Parte Application' 'discretionary Procedural Decisions' 'prescribed Information Provider']

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

Application for Stay of Orders Pending Appeal and Alternative Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal / Court of Appeal Notice of Motion After Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Equity Division Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a further stay should be granted pending determination of the appeal.' 'Whether there was a serious question for the appellate court concerning malice for the tort of injurious falsehood.' 'Whether the Fair Trading Act 1987 claims could support the injunctions.' "Whether Slattery J's discharge of the ex parte orders for material non-disclosure disclosed appealable error." 'Whether procedural decisions permitting cross-examination and the conduct of the interlocutory hearing disclosed appealable error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The further stay and alternative interlocutory injunction were refused because the applicants did not demonstrate a serious question for determination on appeal. The material did not raise a serious question that Slattery J was wrong to find no serious case on malice for injurious falsehood; the applicants accepted they could not rely on the Fair Trading Act basis; and no cogent House v The King error or serious procedural fairness issue was identified in the discretionary procedural rulings or in the discharge of the ex parte orders for material non-disclosure.

Court Disposition

Further stay of orders refused; alternative interlocutory injunction refused; notice of motion otherwise dismissed except for orders already made; applicants to pay respondents' costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to amend the summons seeking leave to appeal and the draft notice of appeal.' 'Save insofar as orders had already been made on the notice of motion, the notice of motion is dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the notice of motion."]