Echo Publications Pty. Ltd. v. Tucker & Ors. Fast Buck$ v. Tucker & Anor [2007] NSWCA 170

Echo Publications Pty. Ltd. v. Tucker & Ors. Fast Buck$ v. Tucker & Anor [2007] NSWCA 170

The Court refused to re-open the endorsement issue because the endorsement question was within the issues raised by the pleadings and submissions, the Court's memorandum disclosed the substance of the matter, and no sufficient misapprehension of fact or law was shown. The Court re-opened Echo Publications' appeal on the s.22 issues because Hodgson JA accepted that the earlier judgment misapprehended what submissions had been made below and that this affected the adequacy of the primary judge's reasons and whether this Court should find the primary judge's conclusion wrong. Fast Buck$'s appeal was re-opened only on matters consequential on any further hearing of the Echo Publications appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to Re Open Court of Appeal Decision / Notice of Motion After Judgment Dated 5 April 2007 and Before Orders Were Entered
Outcome
Applications allowed in part; further hearings ordered on limited issues.
Legal Topics
['re Opening Decisions' 'procedural Fairness' 'misapprehension of Facts or Law' 'qualified Privilege' 'reply to Attack' 'section 22 of the Defamation Act 1974' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['re Opening Decisions' 'procedural Fairness' 'misapprehension of Facts or Law' 'qualified Privilege' 'reply to Attack' 'section 22 of the Defamation Act 1974' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Re Open Court of Appeal Decision / Notice of Motion After Judgment Dated 5 April 2007 and Before Orders Were Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Echo Publications was fairly informed of the endorsement point decided against it.' "Whether the Court's decision on the endorsement point displayed a misapprehension of law or fact justifying re-opening." 'Whether the Court failed to determine an argument by Echo Publications concerning s.22 of the Defamation Act 1974 because it misapprehended what had been argued below.' 'Whether the appeals should be re-opened on costs.' "Whether Fast Buck$ should have any further hearing beyond matters consequential on the further hearing of Echo Publications' appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to re-open the endorsement issue because the endorsement question was within the issues raised by the pleadings and submissions, the Court's memorandum disclosed the substance of the matter, and no sufficient misapprehension of fact or law was shown. The Court re-opened Echo Publications' appeal on the s.22 issues because Hodgson JA accepted that the earlier judgment misapprehended what submissions had been made below and that this affected the adequacy of the primary judge's reasons and whether this Court should find the primary judge's conclusion wrong. Fast Buck$'s appeal was re-opened only on matters consequential on any further hearing of the Echo Publications appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part; further hearings ordered on limited issues.

Orders

  • ['In the Echo Publications appeal, there is to be a further hearing on the s.22 issues; and the costs of the application are to be costs in the further hearing.' 'In the Fast Buck$ appeal, there is to be a further hearing in relation only to matters consequential on the further hearing of the Echo Publications...