SMEC HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS v BONIFACE [2004] NSWSC 526

The bulk or complexity of evidence, technical or expert material, does not reach the level of inconvenience required under former s89 or present s86 Supreme Court Act 1970 to justify dispensing with a jury in this defamation action.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 18 June 2004
Procedural Posture: Defamation / Application to Dispense With Jury
Outcome: Plaintiff's motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: ['application to Dispense With Jury' 'jury Trials in Defamation' 'evidence Admissibility']

['defamation'] ['application to Dispense With Jury' 'jury Trials in Defamation' 'evidence Admissibility']

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

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application to Dispense With Jury

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the proceedings should be tried without a jury pursuant to Supreme Court Act provisions' 'Interpretation and effect of s86 and former s89 Supreme Court Act 1970 and s7A Defamation Act 1974 on jury trials in defamation actions']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

["The plaintiff's motion is dismissed with costs." 'I order the exhibits to be returned.' "I place the matter in the Registrar's Directions List on Wednesday 23 June 2004."]