Gary Leech v John Silvester & Ors [2012] NSWSC 1367

Gary Leech v John Silvester & Ors [2012] NSWSC 1367

The statement of claim for defamation was not so obviously untenable, nor manifestly groundless, as to warrant summary dismissal or striking out. Particulars provided were sufficient given ongoing discovery processes. The proceeding was not an abuse of process, as evidentiary support for summary dismissal was lacking and the pleading was not defective.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gary Leech; First Defendant: John Silvester; Second Defendant: Leonard Andrew Rule; Third Defendant: Sly Ink Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Floradale Productions Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion for Dismissal or Strike Out Pre Trial
Outcome
Defendants’ notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Particulars, Publication, Strike Out Application, Reasonable Cause of Action, Abuse of Process
Defamation Civil Procedure Pleadings Particulars Publication Strike Out Application Reasonable Cause of Action Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Gary Leech

Plaintiff

John Silvester

First Defendant

Leonard Andrew Rule

Second Defendant

Sly Ink Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Floradale Productions Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion for Dismissal or Strike Out Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action for defamation
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings or pleading are an abuse of process
  3. 3 Sufficiency of particulars regarding identity of persons to whom a book was published

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim for defamation was not so obviously untenable, nor manifestly groundless, as to warrant summary dismissal or striking out. Particulars provided were sufficient given ongoing discovery processes. The proceeding was not an abuse of process, as evidentiary support for summary dismissal was lacking and the pleading was not defective.

Court Disposition

Defendants’ notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants’ notice of motion filed 5 November 2012 dismissed.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs of the notice of motion.