BUSINESS AND RESEARCH MANAGEMENT LIMITED v FLUDE [2002] NSWSC 812

BUSINESS AND RESEARCH MANAGEMENT LIMITED v FLUDE [2002] NSWSC 812

The plaintiff did not establish that the documents constituting the matter complained of required prolonged examination within Supreme Court Act 1970 s86(2)(a). The jury's s7A task was no more artificial than in other defamation actions, and the technical or complex nature of the documents did not justify dispensing with the jury. The defendants' request for indemnity costs was refused because the application was novel and its failure did not warrant an undue penalty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application to Dispense With Jury Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S86 and Application for Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed; defendants' application for indemnity costs declined; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['application to Dispense With Jury' 'supreme Court Act 1970 S86' 'defamation Act 1974 S7 a Jury Function' 'indemnity Costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['application to Dispense With Jury' 'supreme Court Act 1970 S86' 'defamation Act 1974 S7 a Jury Function' 'indemnity 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Application to Dispense With Jury Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S86 and Application for Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should order that issues of fact in the defamation proceedings be tried without a jury because prolonged examination of documents was required and could not conveniently be made with a jury.' "Whether the defendants should receive indemnity costs after the plaintiff's unsuccessful application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that the documents constituting the matter complained of required prolonged examination within Supreme Court Act 1970 s86(2)(a). The jury's s7A task was no more artificial than in other defamation actions, and the technical or complex nature of the documents did not justify dispensing with the jury. The defendants' request for indemnity costs was refused because the application was novel and its failure did not warrant an undue penalty.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed; defendants' application for indemnity costs declined; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application is dismissed." "The defendants' application for indemnity costs is declined." "The plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs."]