Norton v Hoare [1913] HCA 58

Norton v Hoare [1913] HCA 58

Leave to appeal from interlocutory orders was refused because the orders required answers to interrogatories relevant to express malice and public interest, and the appeal would be hopeless as of right. The challenged interrogatories administered by the defendant were inadmissible because they concerned the contents of existing documents not shown to be in plaintiff's possession, or were already answered in the libel itself.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: John Norton; Respondent; Plaintiff: Benjamin Hoare
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 1913
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Libel, Public Interest, Express Malice, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Defamation Interrogatories Discovery Libel Public Interest Express Malice Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Norton

Appellant; Defendant

Benjamin Hoare

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of interlocutory orders relating to interrogatories in a defamation action
  2. 2 Whether certain interrogatories are admissible and must be answered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal from interlocutory orders was refused because the orders required answers to interrogatories relevant to express malice and public interest, and the appeal would be hopeless as of right. The challenged interrogatories administered by the defendant were inadmissible because they concerned the contents of existing documents not shown to be in plaintiff's possession, or were already answered in the libel itself.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hood J. and Madden C.J.) refused.
  • Costs to be paid by plaintiffs to defendants as specified in previous orders; costs of appeal to be paid by appellants to respondents as previously ordered.