Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1663

Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1663

Although plaintiff could not reasonably commence a claim until the Coroner's report was available (supporting they were not the driver), there was no adequate explanation for the five month delay between having that information and the commencement of proceedings. Time should only be extended to the point it was no longer unreasonable to sue; as such, the extended period did not cover when the originating process was filed. The application for extension of time therefore failed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Barrett; Defendant: TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Decision on Application for Extension of Limitation Period; Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for extension of limitation period dismissed.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Extension of Limitation Period, Section 56 a Limitation Act 1969 (nsw), Reasonable Prospects of Success (legal Profession Act 2004), Publication on News and Social Media, Test for Extension of Limitation, Duties of Lawyers
Torts Limitation of Actions Professional Conduct Defamation Extension of Limitation Period Section 56 a Limitation Act 1969 (nsw) Reasonable Prospects of Success (legal Profession Act 2004) Publication on News and Social Media +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Barrett

Plaintiff

TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceeding / Decision on Application for Extension of Limitation Period; Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced defamation proceedings within one year from the date of publication per s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the limitation period should be extended for the defamation claims
  3. 3 Whether delay after expiration of the one-year period was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Although plaintiff could not reasonably commence a claim until the Coroner's report was available (supporting they were not the driver), there was no adequate explanation for the five month delay between having that information and the commencement of proceedings. Time should only be extended to the point it was no longer unreasonable to sue; as such, the extended period did not cover when the originating process was filed. The application for extension of time therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for extension of limitation period dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 29 January 2016.
  • The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs.