Cassar v Network Ten Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 680

Cassar v Network Ten Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 680

The plaintiff, being aware of media interest and the possibility of televised publication, did not take reasonable steps within the limitation period to ascertain if the defendant had published defamatory material. Therefore, he has not established that it was not reasonable for him to commence an action within one year from the date of publication, and extension of the limitation period is refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jacob Cassar; Defendant: Network Ten Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation Extension of Limitation Period / Application to Extend Limitation Period; Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the plaintiff except costs relating to the application to reopen evidence.
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Period, Plaintiff Unaware of Publication, Reasonable Inquiry, Application to Extend Time
Defamation Limitation of Actions Extension of Limitation Period Plaintiff Unaware of Publication Reasonable Inquiry Application to Extend Time

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Cassar

Plaintiff

Network Ten Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Extension of Limitation Period / Application to Extend Limitation Period; Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established that it was not reasonable in the circumstances for him to have commenced an action within one year from the date of publication as required by s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend the limitation period for the defamation claim

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, being aware of media interest and the possibility of televised publication, did not take reasonable steps within the limitation period to ascertain if the defendant had published defamatory material. Therefore, he has not established that it was not reasonable for him to commence an action within one year from the date of publication, and extension of the limitation period is refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the plaintiff except costs relating to the application to reopen evidence.

Orders

  • The amended summons is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the application other than the costs of the defendant's application to reopen the evidence.