Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 4) [2018] FCA 1558

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 4) [2018] FCA 1558

Leave to adduce Mr Moody's evidence was refused because the respondents provided no reasonable or adequate explanation for delay, the evidence related to a collateral issue, substantial prejudice would be caused to the applicant, questions remained as to admissibility, and to grant leave would be inconsistent with the overriding interests of justice and case management principles.

Parties
Applicant: Geoffrey Roy Rush; First Respondent: Nationwide News Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Jonathon Moran
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Within Defamation Proceedings / Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence at Trial; Determination Before Main Trial Commencement
Outcome
Respondents' application for leave to adduce evidence from Mr Colin Moody refused; costs of application to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Evidence, Service of Outlines of Evidence, Collateral Issues in Evidence, Prejudice to Parties, Compliance With Court Orders, Case Management
Practice and Procedure Evidence Defamation Leave to Adduce Evidence Service of Outlines of Evidence Collateral Issues in Evidence Prejudice to Parties Compliance With Court Orders +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Roy Rush

Applicant

Nationwide News Pty Limited

First Respondent

Jonathon Moran

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application Within Defamation Proceedings / Application for Leave to Adduce Evidence at Trial; Determination Before Main Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the respondents to adduce evidence from Mr Colin Moody out of time
  2. 2 Whether the late evidence relates to a collateral issue and whether its probative value outweighs any prejudice
  3. 3 Whether any adequate explanation for the delay in serving Mr Moody's outline of evidence was provided

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce Mr Moody's evidence was refused because the respondents provided no reasonable or adequate explanation for delay, the evidence related to a collateral issue, substantial prejudice would be caused to the applicant, questions remained as to admissibility, and to grant leave would be inconsistent with the overriding interests of justice and case management principles.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for leave to adduce evidence from Mr Colin Moody refused; costs of application to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The respondents' application for leave to adduce evidence from Mr Colin Moody be refused.
  • The costs of that application be costs in the cause.