Voscarides v Corrigan [2020] NSWDC 788

Voscarides v Corrigan [2020] NSWDC 788

Because the plaintiffs had substantially revised their statement of claim and particulars, including the particulars of identification, there was a material change in circumstances and new information sufficient to permit the defendant's second interlocutory challenge to identification to be heard. However, the defendant did not meet the very high threshold for summary dismissal: identification depended on disputed evidence, including whether readers of the Facebook posts could reasonably but mistakenly identify the plaintiffs as financial partners or promoters, and the pleadings and facts were unsuitable for summary determination. The defendant's failure to file a defence occurred in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Rehearing of Identification Challenge, Summary Dismissal, and Default Judgment
Outcome
The defendant was permitted to rehear the identification challenge, but the challenge was dismissed; the plaintiffs' application for default judgment was dismissed; costs were ordered to be costs in the cause; and the defendant was ordered to file and serve a defence by a specified date on a self-executing basis.
Legal Topics
['identification in Defamation' 'second Interlocutory Applications' 'abuse of Process' 'summary Dismissal' 'default Judgment' 'case Management' 'self Executing Orders']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['identification in Defamation' 'second Interlocutory Applications' 'abuse of Process' 'summary Dismissal' 'default Judgment' 'case Management' 'self Executing Orders']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Rehearing of Identification Challenge, Summary Dismissal, and Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's second challenge to particulars of identification amounted to an abuse of process." 'Whether the pleaded and particularised case was so incapable of identifying the plaintiffs that the defamation claim should be summarily dismissed.' 'Whether the defendant should be refused leave to file a defence, or default judgment entered, because of non-compliance with earlier orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs had substantially revised their statement of claim and particulars, including the particulars of identification, there was a material change in circumstances and new information sufficient to permit the defendant's second interlocutory challenge to identification to be heard. However, the defendant did not meet the very high threshold for summary dismissal: identification depended on disputed evidence, including whether readers of the Facebook posts could reasonably but mistakenly identify the plaintiffs as financial partners or promoters, and the pleadings and facts were unsuitable for summary determination. The defendant's failure to file a defence occurred in the...

Court Disposition

The defendant was permitted to rehear the identification challenge, but the challenge was dismissed; the plaintiffs' application for default judgment was dismissed; costs were ordered to be costs in the cause; and the defendant was ordered to file and serve a defence by a specified date on a self-executing basis.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's application to rehear the challenge to identification, pursuant to Her Honour Judge Wass SC (Judgment 8 September 2020) is granted, but the challenge to identification is dismissed." "The plaintiffs' application for default judgment is dismissed." 'Costs to be costs in the cause.' 'The defendant is...