Slaven v Prime Media Group Limited [2019] NSWDC 502

Slaven v Prime Media Group Limited [2019] NSWDC 502

The plaintiff is reasonably identified as the subject of both complained-of broadcasts based on evidence from named and other individuals possessing relevant extrinsic facts; the consent orders for separate trial of identification were irregular and are set aside; leave is granted to reopen the plaintiff's case to tender broadcasts; findings are made on identification issues, but with interlocutory effect only due to absence of formal UCPR r 28.2 order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Determination of Identification, Including Orders to Reopen, Set Aside Consent Orders, and Findings on Identification
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to reopen; consent orders for separate trial of identification are set aside; interlocutory findings made that plaintiff is reasonably identified in both broadcasts; costs reserved; parties to propose further timetable.
Legal Topics
['identification in Defamation Where Plaintiff Not Named' 'separate Trials Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'consent Orders' 'admissibility of Evidence in Identification' 'hearsay in Identification Evidence']
['torts' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['identification in Defamation Where Plaintiff Not Named' 'separate Trials Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'consent Orders' 'admissibility of Evidence in Identification' 'hearsay in Identification Evidence']

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 / Interlocutory Determination of Identification, Including Orders to Reopen, Set Aside Consent Orders, and Findings on Identification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff is reasonably identified in the broadcasts complained of' 'Whether consent orders for a separate trial of identification should be set aside under UCPR r 28.4(2)(c)' "Whether leave should be granted to reopen the plaintiff's case to tender broadcasts" 'Admissibility and sufficiency of hearsay evidence for identification']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is reasonably identified as the subject of both complained-of broadcasts based on evidence from named and other individuals possessing relevant extrinsic facts; the consent orders for separate trial of identification were irregular and are set aside; leave is granted to reopen the plaintiff's case to tender broadcasts; findings are made on identification issues, but with interlocutory effect only due to absence of formal UCPR r 28.2 order.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to reopen; consent orders for separate trial of identification are set aside; interlocutory findings made that plaintiff is reasonably identified in both broadcasts; costs reserved; parties to propose further timetable.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiff to reopen his case and tender video broadcasts.' 'Set aside consent orders of 5 April 2019 purporting to provide for separate trial of identification issues under UCPR r 28.4(2)(c).' 'Find that the plaintiff is reasonably identified as subject of the first matter complained of...