Prowse v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 57

Prowse v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 57

The proposed interrogatories 8(ii) and (iv) required the defendants to explain why they held the stated opinions, which went beyond permissible information interrogatories and was directed to reasonableness rather than honesty. In light of Lewis v Page and the necessity and proportionality requirements applicable to interrogatories, the Court was not persuaded that the interrogatories were necessary to resolve the real issues in the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Interrogatories
Outcome
Plaintiff's application refused.
Legal Topics
['honest Opinion' 'interrogatories' 'proportionality' 'practice Note SC CL 4']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['honest Opinion' 'interrogatories' 'proportionality' 'practice Note SC CL 4']

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 / Interlocutory Application Concerning Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be ordered to answer interrogatories 8(ii) and (iv), which required them to state why they held alleged opinions at the time of publication.' 'Whether interrogatories asking why an opinion was held are necessary for resolving issues raised by a reply to a defence of honest opinion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed interrogatories 8(ii) and (iv) required the defendants to explain why they held the stated opinions, which went beyond permissible information interrogatories and was directed to reasonableness rather than honesty. In light of Lewis v Page and the necessity and proportionality requirements applicable to interrogatories, the Court was not persuaded that the interrogatories were necessary to resolve the real issues in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application refused.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's application for an order that the defendants answer interrogatories 8(ii) and (iv) refused." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the application."]