Ritson v Gay & Lesbian Community Publishing Ltd & Ors [2012] NSWSC 483

Ritson v Gay & Lesbian Community Publishing Ltd & Ors [2012] NSWSC 483

The plaintiff failed to act with sufficient promptness after learning of the relevant publications and after the barriers to commencing defamation proceedings were removed. The delay in applying for leave to use documents and commencing proceedings exceeded what could be considered reasonable, thus the statutory requirements for an extension of time were not met. Consequently, the extension was refused and the corresponding parts of the claim were struck out.

Parties
Plaintiff: Brendan Paul Ritson; First Defendant: Gay and Lesbian Community Publishing Ltd; Second Defendant: Gary Burns; Third Defendant: Stephen Pickells; Fourth Defendant: Sydney Educational Broadcasting Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Extend Limitation Period and Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Extension of limitation period refused; certain parts of the statement of claim struck out; leave to amend limited parts of the claim granted; costs awarded partly to defendants.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Defamation Proceedings, Use of Documents From Other Proceedings, Costs
Defamation Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Extension of Time Defamation Proceedings Use of Documents From Other Proceedings Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Paul Ritson

Plaintiff

Gay and Lesbian Community Publishing Ltd

First Defendant

Gary Burns

Second Defendant

Stephen Pickells

Third Defendant

Sydney Educational Broadcasting Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Extend Limitation Period and Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to commence defamation proceedings against the second, third and fourth defendants.
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to amend the statement of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to act with sufficient promptness after learning of the relevant publications and after the barriers to commencing defamation proceedings were removed. The delay in applying for leave to use documents and commencing proceedings exceeded what could be considered reasonable, thus the statutory requirements for an extension of time were not met. Consequently, the extension was refused and the corresponding parts of the claim were struck out.

Court Disposition

Extension of limitation period refused; certain parts of the statement of claim struck out; leave to amend limited parts of the claim granted; costs awarded partly to defendants.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 5 to 26 of the Plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out.
  • The Plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim, limited to: (i) pleading a cause of action in defamation in respect of the publication described as the second matter complained of for a period from 30 December 2010 to 11 February 2011; (ii) inclusion of a paragraph in the form of paragraph 23A of...