Nationwide News Pty Limited v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70

Nationwide News Pty Limited v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient doubt about the primary judge's conclusion that paragraphs 36.9A-36.9C of the amended defence were not reasonably arguable as relevant to the reasonableness inquiry under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), and failed to show that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Court also treated the challenged orders as interlocutory practice and procedure orders requiring caution before appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Defamation Proceeding / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Striking Out Paragraphs of the Amended Defence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'reasonableness of Publication' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'reasonableness of Publication' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'case Management']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal in Defamation Proceeding / Full Court Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Striking Out Paragraphs of the Amended Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the primary judge's order striking out paragraphs 36.9A-36.9C of the amended defence." "Whether there was sufficient doubt about the primary judge's conclusion that the objective truth of the pleaded facts could not relevantly bear on the reasonableness of the applicants' publication for the purposes of s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient doubt about the primary judge's conclusion that paragraphs 36.9A-36.9C of the amended defence were not reasonably arguable as relevant to the reasonableness inquiry under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), and failed to show that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Court also treated the challenged orders as interlocutory practice and procedure orders requiring caution before appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal filed 3 April 2018 be dismissed with costs.']