Morrow v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1736

Morrow v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1736

It was not reasonable in all the circumstances for Mr Morrow to have commenced the defamation proceedings within one year of publication. He was engaged in related Equity Division proceedings and attempting to bring forward the defamation claims by amendment; the defendants' correspondence contemplated that the claims could await the outcome of those proceedings; and he had not been released from Harman obligations before the limitation periods expired. His cautious approach to the Harman undertakings was prudent and appropriate. Because the s 56A test was satisfied, the limitation periods were extended as ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings; Notice of Motion for Extension of Limitation Period / Interlocutory Application After Proceedings Commenced Out of Time
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion allowed; limitation periods extended under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 and costs ordered to be the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'defamation Proceedings Commenced Out of Time' 'harman Undertaking' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'related Equity Division Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'limitation of Actions'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'defamation Proceedings Commenced Out of Time' 'harman Undertaking' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'related Equity Division Proceedings']

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; Notice of Motion for Extension of Limitation Period / Interlocutory Application After Proceedings Commenced Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the limitation period for the plaintiff's defamation causes of action should be extended under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969." 'Whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action within one year from the date of publication.' 'Whether the related Equity Division proceedings, contested amendment process, lack of access to publications and Harman undertakings made commencement within time unreasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not reasonable in all the circumstances for Mr Morrow to have commenced the defamation proceedings within one year of publication. He was engaged in related Equity Division proceedings and attempting to bring forward the defamation claims by amendment; the defendants' correspondence contemplated that the claims could await the outcome of those proceedings; and he had not been released from Harman obligations before the limitation periods expired. His cautious approach to the Harman undertakings was prudent and appropriate. Because the s 56A test was satisfied, the limitation periods were extended as ordered.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion allowed; limitation periods extended under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 and costs ordered to be the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["Order pursuant to s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 extending the limitation period for the plaintiff's causes of action for defamation for the publications detailed at subparagraphs (a) to (f) below on the following basis:" 'the limitation period for the matter reproduced at Schedule A of the amended statement of...