Kelly v UNSW [2025] NSWDC 24

Kelly v UNSW [2025] NSWDC 24

No valid concerns notices were served for the defamation claims, and the plaintiff failed to answer a particulars notice, barring the claims procedurally. In addition, the limitation period had expired and no extension was justified on the evidence. The intimidation claim was not properly pleaded but leave to replead was granted. Accordingly, the defamation claims were struck out and dismissed, the plaintiff's notice of motion for default judgment dismissed, and costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: Milton Kelly; First Defendant: UNSW; Second Defendant: MSS; Third Defendant: Sarah Heesom
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedural Application; Summary Dismissal and Limitation Extension Applications
Outcome
Defamation claims struck out and dismissed; intimidation claims struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff's motion for default judgment dismissed; costs against plaintiff; proceedings transferred to General List.
Legal Topics
Defamation Claims, Limitation Periods, Concerns Notice Procedure, Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Tort of Intimidation
Tort Defamation Civil Procedure Defamation Claims Limitation Periods Concerns Notice Procedure Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications +1 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 6 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milton Kelly

Plaintiff

UNSW

First Defendant

MSS

Second Defendant

Sarah Heesom

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedural Application; Summary Dismissal and Limitation Extension Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether valid concerns notices were served for defamation claims under Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 12A, 12B
  2. 2 Whether extension of the limitation period for defamation proceedings should be granted under Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether claims for defamation and intimidation should be struck out or summarily dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

No valid concerns notices were served for the defamation claims, and the plaintiff failed to answer a particulars notice, barring the claims procedurally. In addition, the limitation period had expired and no extension was justified on the evidence. The intimidation claim was not properly pleaded but leave to replead was granted. Accordingly, the defamation claims were struck out and dismissed, the plaintiff's notice of motion for default judgment dismissed, and costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Defamation claims struck out and dismissed; intimidation claims struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff's motion for default judgment dismissed; costs against plaintiff; proceedings transferred to General List.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for an extension of the limitation period to bring proceedings for defamation for the claims in paragraphs 25 – 29, 31 – 35 and 37 – 39 of the statement of claim is refused.
  • The plaintiff's claims for defamation in paragraphs 25 – 29, 31 – 35 and 37 - 39 of the statement of claim against the first and third defendants are struck out and dismissed.