Kang v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 307

Kang v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 307

The dictates of justice required dismissal of the proceedings because the plaintiff commenced defamation proceedings late, failed to serve several defendants, failed to comply with every court order made to date, failed to amend plainly defective pleadings despite repeated opportunities and costs orders, provided an unsatisfactory and incomplete explanation for delay, and brought a belated motion that could not properly be dealt with against unserved parties. The proposed amended pleading remained defective. In the alternative, the court would have set aside the statement of claim against the third, fourth, fifth and seventh defendants because they had not been personally served and no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal And/or Setting Aside of the Statement of Claim; Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Extension of Time for Service, Leave to Amend and Leave to Discontinue Against Two Defendants
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; defendants' notices of motion granted; proceedings struck out and dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs with liberty to apply concerning costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'delay in Commencement and Conduct of Litigation' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'service of Originating Process' 'extension of Time for Service' 'setting Aside Statement of Claim' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'case Management Obligations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Dismissal' 'delay in Commencement and Conduct of Litigation' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'service of Originating Process' 'extension of Time for Service' 'setting Aside Statement of Claim' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'case Management Obligations']

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 Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal And/or Setting Aside of the Statement of Claim; Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Extension of Time for Service, Leave to Amend and Leave to Discontinue Against Two Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed under UCPR r 12.7 and s 61 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for failure to prosecute diligently and failure to comply with court orders.' 'Whether the third, fourth, fifth and seventh defendants were entitled to a declaration that the statement of claim had not been served and an order setting it aside under UCPR r 12.11(1)(c).' 'Whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to serve the statement of claim and leave to file an amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the sixth defendant was validly served despite pleading omissions concerning publication and defamatory imputations.' 'Whether the possibility of fresh proceedings under s 23 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) made striking out futile.']

Ratio Decidendi

The dictates of justice required dismissal of the proceedings because the plaintiff commenced defamation proceedings late, failed to serve several defendants, failed to comply with every court order made to date, failed to amend plainly defective pleadings despite repeated opportunities and costs orders, provided an unsatisfactory and incomplete explanation for delay, and brought a belated motion that could not properly be dealt with against unserved parties. The proposed amended pleading remained defective. In the alternative, the court would have set aside the statement of claim against the third, fourth, fifth and seventh defendants because they had not been personally served and no...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; defendants' notices of motion granted; proceedings struck out and dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs with liberty to apply concerning costs.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed in court on 10 November 2016 dismissed." "Defendants' Notices of Motion of 29 July 2016, 25 August 2016 and 30 August 2016 granted; these proceedings are struck out and dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of these proceedings." 'Liberty to apply concerning...