Roberts v The Manning Community News Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] NSWDC 301

Roberts v The Manning Community News Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] NSWDC 301

The defendants' application failed because the publications in the first proceedings and the second proceedings were not the same or like matter within s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW): although there was some commonality, the first proceedings concerned broad allegations about the plaintiff's conduct as CEO of the Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council and his Aboriginality, while the second proceedings concerned court proceedings and allegations about assault and related conduct. Reliance on the later publications as particulars of aggravated damages in the first proceedings did not make them matter for s 23, and in any event that reliance had been abandoned. Accordingly no leave was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application for Summary Dismissal as an Abuse of Process Under S 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Defendants' application for summary dismissal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'leave for Further Defamation Proceedings' 'same or Like Matter' 'aggravated Damages' 'multiplicity of Proceedings']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'leave for Further Defamation Proceedings' 'same or Like Matter' 'aggravated Damages' 'multiplicity of 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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application for Summary Dismissal as an Abuse of Process Under S 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What factors determine whether publications are the same or like matter for s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether commencement of proceedings in relation to publications previously relied on for aggravated damages in separate defamation proceedings against the same defendant requires leave under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether abandonment of reliance on those publications as particulars of aggravated damages affects any need for leave.' 'Whether commencement of proceedings on publications relied on for aggravated damages in earlier proceedings warrants dismissal as an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' application failed because the publications in the first proceedings and the second proceedings were not the same or like matter within s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW): although there was some commonality, the first proceedings concerned broad allegations about the plaintiff's conduct as CEO of the Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council and his Aboriginality, while the second proceedings concerned court proceedings and allegations about assault and related conduct. Reliance on the later publications as particulars of aggravated damages in the first proceedings did not make them matter for s 23, and in any event that reliance had been abandoned. Accordingly no leave was...

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for summary dismissal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Defendants' application for summary dismissal of these proceedings dismissed with costs, with liberty to apply." 'Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 18 June 2020 for the parties to hand up a timetable for the future conduct of these proceedings.']