Murphy v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2017] FCA 603

Murphy v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2017] FCA 603

The Federal Court declined to dispense with the requirement for the respondents to file a defence as the respondents know the imputations being pursued, differences in practice from state courts exist due to judge-alone trials, and considerations of efficiency and avoidance of delay outweigh the potential for wasted costs if later amendments are made. The respondents have not shown they would be unable to plead to the statement of claim at this stage.

Parties
Applicant: Christopher Murphy; First Respondent: Nationwide News Pty Limited ACN 008 438 828; Second Respondent: Annette Sharp
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Dispensation From the Requirement to File Defence
Outcome
Application by respondents for dispensation from filing defence refused; filing timelines extended; directions for further interlocutory steps and liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
Dispensation From Filing Defence, Objections to Statement of Claim, Pleadings, Delay in Litigation, Efficient Resolution of Litigation
Practice and Procedure Defamation Dispensation From Filing Defence Objections to Statement of Claim Pleadings Delay in Litigation Efficient Resolution of Litigation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Murphy

Applicant

Nationwide News Pty Limited ACN 008 438 828

First Respondent

Annette Sharp

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Dispensation From the Requirement to File Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should respondents be relieved of the obligation to file a defence pending resolution of objections to the statement of claim?
  2. 2 Does the practice of state courts in defamation matters regarding the timing of objections to imputations apply in the Federal Court?
  3. 3 Are there difficulties for respondents in pleading to the statement of claim that warrant dispensation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court declined to dispense with the requirement for the respondents to file a defence as the respondents know the imputations being pursued, differences in practice from state courts exist due to judge-alone trials, and considerations of efficiency and avoidance of delay outweigh the potential for wasted costs if later amendments are made. The respondents have not shown they would be unable to plead to the statement of claim at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application by respondents for dispensation from filing defence refused; filing timelines extended; directions for further interlocutory steps and liberty to apply.

Orders

  • Application by respondents for dispensation from compliance with r 16.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 refused.
  • Time for respondents to file defence extended to 9 June 2017.