M1 v R1 & Ors [2022] NSWDC 409

M1 v R1 & Ors [2022] NSWDC 409

The Summons was struck out and dismissed because the concerns notice contained no identifiable particulars of serious harm, used vague and speculative language, relied on possible future republications, and failed to plead a causal connection between the publications and serious reputational harm, so it was invalid. The notice also failed to attach the full matters complained of. Independently, the first two matters complained of were subpoenaed documents from Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia proceedings and could not be used in this collateral defamation proceeding without release from the Harman undertaking; because all four publications were intertwined, the Summons should...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings Seeking Damages and an Injunction for Four Alleged Defamatory Publications / Application for Summary Dismissal and Plaintiff's Application for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Summons struck out and dismissed; plaintiff's application for injunctive relief refused; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['concerns Notice' 'serious Harm Particulars' 'summary Dismissal' 'harman Undertaking' 'documents Produced Under Subpoena' 'injunctive Relief' 'costs']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['concerns Notice' 'serious Harm Particulars' 'summary Dismissal' 'harman Undertaking' 'documents Produced Under Subpoena' 'injunctive Relief' 'costs']

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 Seeking Damages and an Injunction for Four Alleged Defamatory Publications / Application for Summary Dismissal and Plaintiff's Application for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's concerns notice was invalid because it failed to provide adequate particulars of serious harm under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the failure to attach the full matters complained of rendered the concerns notice invalid.' 'Whether the plaintiff could sue for defamation on the first two matters complained of where they were documents produced under subpoena in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia proceedings and subject to Harman obligations and r 6.36 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).' 'Whether all four publications should be struck out because the causes of action were intertwined.' 'Whether the plaintiff should receive an injunction restraining the defendants from further defamatory publications.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Summons was struck out and dismissed because the concerns notice contained no identifiable particulars of serious harm, used vague and speculative language, relied on possible future republications, and failed to plead a causal connection between the publications and serious reputational harm, so it was invalid. The notice also failed to attach the full matters complained of. Independently, the first two matters complained of were subpoenaed documents from Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia proceedings and could not be used in this collateral defamation proceeding without release from the Harman undertaking; because all four publications were intertwined, the Summons should...

Court Disposition

Summons struck out and dismissed; plaintiff's application for injunctive relief refused; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons struck out and dismissed.' "Plaintiff pay defendants' costs of this application and of the proceedings."]