Hayward v Barratt [2000] NSWSC 708

Hayward v Barratt [2000] NSWSC 708

The notice of motion was dismissed because, at the early stage before the defence and further pleadings clarified the real issues, the defendants had not shown that factors of justice required transfer to South Australia. Although there were some South Australian connections, there were also substantial New South Wales connections, including the second publication, witnesses about the Sydney meeting, and many shareholders in New South Wales; on the presently apparent qualified privilege issue, the defendants' belief rather than objective truth was central, so the asserted need for extensive South Australian documents was not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notice of Motion Under S 5 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 to Transfer the Proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['cross Vesting' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'pleadings' 'discovery and Interrogatories']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['cross Vesting' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'pleadings' 'discovery and Interrogatories']

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

Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notice of Motion Under S 5 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (cross Vesting) Act 1987 to Transfer the Proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defamation proceedings should be transferred from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of South Australia under s 5 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987.' 'Whether the application was premature because the issues had not yet been settled by pleadings and interlocutory steps.' 'Whether the possible defence of qualified privilege made the objective truth of underlying facts relevant to the transfer application.' 'Whether connections with South Australia outweighed connections with New South Wales.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because, at the early stage before the defence and further pleadings clarified the real issues, the defendants had not shown that factors of justice required transfer to South Australia. Although there were some South Australian connections, there were also substantial New South Wales connections, including the second publication, witnesses about the Sydney meeting, and many shareholders in New South Wales; on the presently apparent qualified privilege issue, the defendants' belief rather than objective truth was central, so the asserted need for extensive South Australian documents was not established.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The present notice of motion is dismissed with costs.']