Parizian v Seven Network Limited [2018] NSWDC 296

Parizian v Seven Network Limited [2018] NSWDC 296

The plaintiff failed to establish that it was not reasonable in the circumstances to commence proceedings against Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd within one year. He knew of the allegedly defamatory broadcast shortly after publication, sought legal advice, learned of the one year limitation period before it expired, instructed lawyers, and commenced proceedings within time, but sued the wrong entity. The correct broadcaster's identity was ascertainable from publicly available information and legal materials. Solicitor error or incompetent legal advice did not satisfy the stringent s 56A test. Accordingly, the extension of time was refused, leaving only any properly pleaded online...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceeding / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings Under S 56 a Limitation Act 1969 (nsw)
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion seeking an extension of time was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'one Year Limitation Period for Defamation' 'multiple Publication Rule' 'joinder of Defendant' 'misnomer' 'online Publication']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'one Year Limitation Period for Defamation' 'multiple Publication Rule' 'joinder of Defendant' 'misnomer' 'online Publication']

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 Proceeding / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Seeking an Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings Under S 56 a Limitation Act 1969 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should receive an extension of time under s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) to commence defamation proceedings against Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd after expiry of the one year limitation period.' "Whether delay or error by the plaintiff's legal advisers, including suing a non-existent entity and failing to identify the broadcaster, made it not reasonable for the plaintiff to commence proceedings within one year." 'Whether the identity of Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd as broadcaster was sufficiently unknown or uncertain to justify an extension of time.' 'What remains of the online publication claim by operation of the multiple publication rule.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish that it was not reasonable in the circumstances to commence proceedings against Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd within one year. He knew of the allegedly defamatory broadcast shortly after publication, sought legal advice, learned of the one year limitation period before it expired, instructed lawyers, and commenced proceedings within time, but sued the wrong entity. The correct broadcaster's identity was ascertainable from publicly available information and legal materials. Solicitor error or incompetent legal advice did not satisfy the stringent s 56A test. Accordingly, the extension of time was refused, leaving only any properly pleaded online...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion seeking an extension of time was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's notice of motion seeking an extension of time to commence proceedings pursuant to s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) is dismissed." 'Costs reserved with liberty to apply.' 'The plaintiff is to file and serve any amended statement of claim (if still pursued) in 14 days, such amendments to restrict the...