Cornish v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2015] NSWSC 900
The particulars in the plaintiffs' proposed reply do not demonstrate or support the statutory requirement for defeasance under s 31(4)(c); thus, leave to file the reply is refused as it is not reasonably arguable.
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Adam Charles Cornish; Second Plaintiff: Mark Hilton Hevers; Defendant: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Defamation / Application for Leave to File Fourth Proposed Reply
- Outcome
- Application for leave to file fourth proposed reply refused
- Legal Topics
- Procedure, Pleadings, Defeasance Under S 31(4)(c) Defamation Act
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Adam Charles Cornish
First Plaintiff
Mark Hilton Hevers
Second Plaintiff
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Leave to File Fourth Proposed Reply
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs' proposed fourth reply adequately pleads particulars to sustain the contention that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe the opinion was not honestly held by each commentator at the time the matter complained of was published
Ratio Decidendi
The particulars in the plaintiffs' proposed reply do not demonstrate or support the statutory requirement for defeasance under s 31(4)(c); thus, leave to file the reply is refused as it is not reasonably arguable.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to file fourth proposed reply refused
Orders
- Application to file the fourth proposed reply is refused
- By consent, orders 1, 2 and 3 in the handwritten orders provided to the Court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment