Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1535

Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1535

Because the defendants had promptly sought directions under r 31.19, the proposed expert material had already been served, and the plaintiff did not propose to serve any responding expert evidence, it was sufficient to record compliance with r 31.19 and unnecessary to make further directions under r 31.20; however, in a jury trial the plaintiff remained able to object to the admissibility of the proposed expert report.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Directions for Expert Evidence and Costs
Outcome
The Court recorded that the defendants had discharged their obligation under r 31.19 to seek directions promptly and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of relisting the proceedings on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'directions for Expert Evidence' 'bikie Gang Imputations' 'contextual Truth Defence' 'costs on Indemnity Basis']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'directions for Expert Evidence' 'bikie Gang Imputations' 'contextual Truth Defence' 'costs on Indemnity Basis']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Directions for Expert Evidence and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants had discharged their obligation under r 31.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) promptly to seek directions in respect of their intention to adduce expert evidence.' 'Whether the question of what is a "bikie gang" is an issue on which the tribunal of fact would be assisted by expert evidence.' 'Whether directions regarding expert witnesses under r 31.20 were necessary where the proposed expert report had already been served and no responding report would be served.' 'Whether the plaintiff remained entitled to object to the admissibility of the proposed expert report at a jury trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants had promptly sought directions under r 31.19, the proposed expert material had already been served, and the plaintiff did not propose to serve any responding expert evidence, it was sufficient to record compliance with r 31.19 and unnecessary to make further directions under r 31.20; however, in a jury trial the plaintiff remained able to object to the admissibility of the proposed expert report.

Court Disposition

The Court recorded that the defendants had discharged their obligation under r 31.19 to seek directions promptly and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of relisting the proceedings on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Note that the defendants have discharged their obligation pursuant to r 31.19 of the UCPR promptly to seek directions from the Court in respect of their intention to adduce expert evidence.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of relisting the proceedings (in respect of the failure to provide particulars with...