Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131

Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131

The defendant's abuse of process objections failed because statements to police were not protected by absolute privilege, the COPS report was not shown to be a confidential document obtainable only by compulsion, it was available to appropriately interested persons such as the plaintiff, and both the Burwood Local Court and NSW Police Service raised no objection to its use. The lack of connection between the Local Court proceedings and the defamation proceedings did not itself justify striking out the claim. The plaintiff did not know of the alleged first publication until after expiry of the limitation period, commenced proceedings promptly, the delay was short, and no prejudice was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications: Plaintiff Sought Extension of Limitation Period and Release From Any Undertaking Concerning Use of a COPS Report; Defendant Sought Dismissal or Strike Out for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Defendant's Notice of Motion dismissed; limitation period extended; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'use of Documents Obtained Under Subpoena' 'implied Undertaking' 'cops Reports' 'qualified Privilege and Absolute Privilege' 'extension of Limitation Period']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['abuse of Process' 'use of Documents Obtained Under Subpoena' 'implied Undertaking' 'cops Reports' 'qualified Privilege and Absolute Privilege' 'extension of Limitation Period']

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: Plaintiff Sought Extension of Limitation Period and Release From Any Undertaking Concerning Use of a COPS Report; Defendant Sought Dismissal or Strike Out for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defamation claim based on statements recorded in a NSW Police Force COPS report obtained under subpoena was an abuse of process' 'Whether statements made to police were protected by absolute privilege or qualified privilege' 'Whether the COPS report was a confidential document obtainable only by compulsion of law' 'Whether absence of connection between the Local Court proceedings and the defamation proceedings required a stay or strike out' 'Whether the limitation period should be extended under s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's abuse of process objections failed because statements to police were not protected by absolute privilege, the COPS report was not shown to be a confidential document obtainable only by compulsion, it was available to appropriately interested persons such as the plaintiff, and both the Burwood Local Court and NSW Police Service raised no objection to its use. The lack of connection between the Local Court proceedings and the defamation proceedings did not itself justify striking out the claim. The plaintiff did not know of the alleged first publication until after expiry of the limitation period, commenced proceedings promptly, the delay was short, and no prejudice was...

Court Disposition

Defendant's Notice of Motion dismissed; limitation period extended; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiff to file the further affidavit of Mr Kalantzis by 4:00pm Friday 12 June 2009.' "Judgment to be emailed to the parties following receipt of Mr Kalantzis' affidavit on Friday 12 June 2009." "Defendant's Notice of Motion dismissed." 'Extend the limitation period from 17 May to 27 October...