Dehsabzi & Dehsabzi v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 247

Dehsabzi & Dehsabzi v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 247

The Summons for extension of time was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not commenced proceedings within the available extension period: no Statement of Claim had been filed, and under Trpenoski a Summons or interlocutory application for leave was not commencement of proceedings for recovery of damages. In any event, the plaintiffs failed to provide a sufficient explanation for their deliberate delay from November 2006 to July 2007 and further delay until the last day of the extension period, and the defendant established actual prejudice through loss of the journalist's notes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Limitation Application / Plaintiffs' Summons for Extension of Time to Bring Proceedings in New South Wales and the Northern Territory
Outcome
Plaintiffs' Summons dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'commencement of Proceedings' 'statement of Claim Not Filed' 'publication on the Internet' 'actual Prejudice' 'delay' 'missing Documents and Witnesses']
['defamation' 'limitation of Actions' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['extension of Time' 'commencement of Proceedings' 'statement of Claim Not Filed' 'publication on the Internet' 'actual Prejudice' 'delay' 'missing Documents and Witnesses']

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; Limitation Application / Plaintiffs' Summons for Extension of Time to Bring Proceedings in New South Wales and the Northern Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' Summons, without any filed Statement of Claim, commenced proceedings within the available extension period." 'Whether the plaintiffs gave a sufficient explanation for failing to commence defamation proceedings in time.' 'Whether the defendant suffered actual prejudice from the delay.' 'Whether the proposed defamation claim was so weak or hopeless that leave should be refused.' 'What costs order should be made after dismissal of the Summons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Summons for extension of time was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not commenced proceedings within the available extension period: no Statement of Claim had been filed, and under Trpenoski a Summons or interlocutory application for leave was not commencement of proceedings for recovery of damages. In any event, the plaintiffs failed to provide a sufficient explanation for their deliberate delay from November 2006 to July 2007 and further delay until the last day of the extension period, and the defendant established actual prejudice through loss of the journalist's notes.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' Summons dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiffs\' Summons for Extension of Time to bring proceedings in New South Wales and the Northern Territory arising from the publication "Lost In Translation" (the Australian Financial Review, 25 and 26 September 2004) dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.' 'Liberty to restore in relation to costs.' 'Exhibits...