Landrey v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 76

Landrey v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 76

It was not reasonable, in all the objective circumstances, for the appellant to commence defamation proceedings within the one-year limitation period due to the extant and overlapping criminal investigations and proceedings, proper legal advice not to do so, and the appreciable risk that advancing a civil case would prejudice his defence. The fact that he participated as a director and witness in related civil proceedings did not, without more, nullify these factors or justify a finding to the contrary. Thus, the limitation period ought to be extended to encompass the filing date of the originating application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Judgment After Hearing on Appeal From Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Periods' 'right to Silence and Privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings' 'orders for Costs' 'objectivity and Discretion in Limitation Statutes']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation' 'limitation of Actions'] ['extension of Limitation Periods' 'right to Silence and Privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings' 'orders for Costs' 'objectivity and Discretion in Limitation Statutes']

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

Appeal / Full Court Judgment After Hearing on Appeal From Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was reasonable for the appellant to commence defamation proceedings outside the one-year limitation period under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)' 'Whether concurrent criminal proceedings justified not commencing civil defamation action within time' "Whether the appellant's conduct (as director in related litigation) was inconsistent with asserting the right to silence"]

Ratio Decidendi

It was not reasonable, in all the objective circumstances, for the appellant to commence defamation proceedings within the one-year limitation period due to the extant and overlapping criminal investigations and proceedings, proper legal advice not to do so, and the appreciable risk that advancing a civil case would prejudice his defence. The fact that he participated as a director and witness in related civil proceedings did not, without more, nullify these factors or justify a finding to the contrary. Thus, the limitation period ought to be extended to encompass the filing date of the originating application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Orders 1 and 2 of the orders made in proceeding NSD809/2022 on 27 January 2023 are set aside.' 'In lieu, it is ordered that the applicant is granted an extension of the limitation period under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) up to and including 21 September 2022 (date of filing).'...