Carr v Reynolds Porter Chamberlain [2007] NSWSC 21

Carr v Reynolds Porter Chamberlain [2007] NSWSC 21

Because the plaintiff amended his claim and undertook not to proceed elsewhere in respect of United Kingdom publication, RPC no longer pursued its stay application, but the original pleading had justified RPC incurring the stay application costs, including the abuse of process argument, so the plaintiff was ordered to pay those costs up to and including 16 November 2006. It was just and reasonable to extend time for the identified publications to Minter Ellison on 6 October 2004 and 10 October 2004 because the plaintiff did not know of the matter or any publication until October 2005 and the extension was confined to identified publications; however, as the plaintiff sought an indulgence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Applications by the Defendants for a Stay of Proceedings and by the Plaintiff Under the Limitation Act for an Extension of Time
Outcome
The defendants' stay application was dismissed; the plaintiff's application under the Limitation Act was granted for the identified publications to Minter Ellison; the plaintiff was ordered to pay RPC's costs on both applications as specified.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'abuse of Process' 'extension of Limitation Period' 'internet Publication' 'costs']
['defamation' 'limitation of Actions' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'forum Non Conveniens' 'abuse of Process' 'extension of Limitation Period' 'internet Publication' '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

Defamation Proceedings / Applications by the Defendants for a Stay of Proceedings and by the Plaintiff Under the Limitation Act for an Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings should be dismissed after the plaintiff amended the claim to limit it to publications in Australia and New Zealand and undertook not to proceed elsewhere for publication in the United Kingdom." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs incurred on the stay application up to and including 16 November 2006." 'Whether it was just and reasonable under s 56A of the Limitation Act to extend time for proceedings based on the publications to Minter Ellison on 6 October 2004 and 10 October 2004.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs on the plaintiff's extension of time application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff amended his claim and undertook not to proceed elsewhere in respect of United Kingdom publication, RPC no longer pursued its stay application, but the original pleading had justified RPC incurring the stay application costs, including the abuse of process argument, so the plaintiff was ordered to pay those costs up to and including 16 November 2006. It was just and reasonable to extend time for the identified publications to Minter Ellison on 6 October 2004 and 10 October 2004 because the plaintiff did not know of the matter or any publication until October 2005 and the extension was confined to identified publications; however, as the plaintiff sought an indulgence...

Court Disposition

The defendants' stay application was dismissed; the plaintiff's application under the Limitation Act was granted for the identified publications to Minter Ellison; the plaintiff was ordered to pay RPC's costs on both applications as specified.

Orders

  • ['On the application by RPC filed 2 June 2006: The application is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff, Malcolm Douglas Carr, is to pay the costs of RPC incurred in relation to the application up to and including 16 November 2006.' 'On the application by Malcolm Douglas Carr under the Limitation Act: Order that time for...