Sarina v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 190

Sarina v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 190

The deed of release was confined to settlement of the District Court proceedings concerning the publication of the third article and did not clearly or unmistakably release claims concerning other articles or publications, especially by a related company not party to the deed. Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been granted as there was a reasonable prospect of the applicant succeeding at trial.

Parties
Applicant: Clinton Sarina; Respondent: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Federal Court Full Court Judgment on Leave and Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of primary judge set aside; leave to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Deed of Release, Construction of Releases, Cause of Action in Defamation, Equitable Principles of Construction
Defamation Summary Judgment Deed of Release Construction of Releases Cause of Action in Defamation Equitable Principles of Construction

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clinton Sarina

Applicant

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal / Federal Court Full Court Judgment on Leave and Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of release extended to publications not specifically referred to in the deed
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether Fairfax Media could enforce the release even though it was not a party to the deed

Ratio Decidendi

The deed of release was confined to settlement of the District Court proceedings concerning the publication of the third article and did not clearly or unmistakably release claims concerning other articles or publications, especially by a related company not party to the deed. Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been granted as there was a reasonable prospect of the applicant succeeding at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of primary judge set aside; leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • The applicant be granted leave to appeal and the appeal be treated as instituted instanter in the form of the draft notice of appeal, provided a notice of appeal is filed and served by 1 November 2018.
  • The orders of the Court made 17 April 2018 be set aside and in lieu thereof: (a) The interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 12 October 2017 be dismissed. (b) The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application.