Jacobs v Levitt [2016] NSWDC 202

Jacobs v Levitt [2016] NSWDC 202

Because there was no challenge to the plaintiff's evidence that he did not know of the matter complained of until June 2016, it would not have been reasonable for him to commence proceedings within one year of publication in relation to a publication he knew nothing about. The statutory criteria in s 56A were satisfied, so the extension of time had to be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Extension of Limitation Period Under S 56 a of the Limitation Act 1969 (nsw)
Outcome
Extension of time granted; costs to be costs in the cause; timetable orders made.
Legal Topics
['application for Extension of Time to Commence Defamation Proceedings' 'plaintiff Unaware of Publication Until After Expiry of Limitation Period' 'mandatory Extension If Statutory Criteria Satisfied']
['tort' 'defamation' 'limitation of Actions' 'civil Procedure'] ['application for Extension of Time to Commence Defamation Proceedings' 'plaintiff Unaware of Publication Until After Expiry of Limitation Period' 'mandatory Extension If Statutory Criteria Satisfied']

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 / Notice of Motion for Extension of Limitation Period Under S 56 a of the Limitation Act 1969 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action in relation to the matter complained of within 1 year from the date of publication.' 'Whether time should be extended under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) to permit commencement of the defamation proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no challenge to the plaintiff's evidence that he did not know of the matter complained of until June 2016, it would not have been reasonable for him to commence proceedings within one year of publication in relation to a publication he knew nothing about. The statutory criteria in s 56A were satisfied, so the extension of time had to be granted.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; costs to be costs in the cause; timetable orders made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), extend time for the commencement of these proceedings to 2 August 2016.' 'Costs to be costs in the cause.' 'Any Defence to be filed within 28 days.' 'Any Reply 14 days thereafter.' 'Matter stood over to Thursday 10 November 2016 in the Defamation List, on which date any...