Ghosh v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 90

Ghosh v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 90

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant previously brought proceedings for defamation against the respondents concerning the same or like matter, requiring leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). Granting leave would be unduly oppressive to the respondents and disproportionate in light of the applicant’s litigation history and outstanding costs, and would not achieve a just, quick, and cheap resolution of real issues per the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The applicant did not demonstrate clear error or injustice in the primary judgment’s exercise of discretion, and no suitable issue of principle warranted appellate review.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application to adjourn hearing refused; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'joinder of Parties' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'practice and Procedure' 'continuing Publication on the Internet' 'limitation Period']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'joinder of Parties' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'practice and Procedure' 'continuing Publication on the Internet' 'limitation Period']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is required to join proposed parties who were defendants in previous proceedings concerning the same or like matter' 'Whether a grant of leave would be unduly oppressive to the respondents or impose a disproportionate burden on court resources' 'Whether the publications are statute barred under s 14B of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant previously brought proceedings for defamation against the respondents concerning the same or like matter, requiring leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). Granting leave would be unduly oppressive to the respondents and disproportionate in light of the applicant’s litigation history and outstanding costs, and would not achieve a just, quick, and cheap resolution of real issues per the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The applicant did not demonstrate clear error or injustice in the primary judgment’s exercise of discretion, and no suitable issue of principle warranted appellate review.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application to adjourn hearing refused; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • ['Refuse the application to adjourn the hearing of the application for leave to appeal.' 'Refuse the application for leave to appeal.' 'Applicant to pay the costs in this Court of the second and third respondents to the application.']