Cornish v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2015] NSWSC 900

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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