Jones v Williams (pseudonyms) [2018] NSWSC 954

Jones v Williams (pseudonyms) [2018] NSWSC 954

On the evidence, no discernible cause of action for defamatory statements was within the power of s 56A to extend, as there was no cogent account of a qualifying publication within the three years prior to commencement of proceedings. Even if the court had power, the substantial, largely unexplained further delay by the plaintiff after becoming aware of the publication meant it was not appropriate to extend the limitation period. The proposed amended claim did not disclose a defamatory publication. Accordingly, the applications must be refused and the proceedings dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Rulings on Limitation Extension and Amendment
Outcome
Plaintiff's applications refused; proceedings against the 4th to 6th defendants dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['limitation Periods' 'extension of Limitation Period' 'abuse of Process' 'defamatory Publication' 'amendment of Pleadings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['limitation Periods' 'extension of Limitation Period' 'abuse of Process' 'defamatory Publication' 'amendment of Pleadings']

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 / Interlocutory Rulings on Limitation Extension and Amendment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the limitation period for defamation may be extended under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) on the facts' 'Whether leave should be granted to file the proposed amended statement of claim' 'Whether the proceedings amount to abuse of process']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, no discernible cause of action for defamatory statements was within the power of s 56A to extend, as there was no cogent account of a qualifying publication within the three years prior to commencement of proceedings. Even if the court had power, the substantial, largely unexplained further delay by the plaintiff after becoming aware of the publication meant it was not appropriate to extend the limitation period. The proposed amended claim did not disclose a defamatory publication. Accordingly, the applications must be refused and the proceedings dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's applications refused; proceedings against the 4th to 6th defendants dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application to extend the limitation period in respect of the cause of action pleaded at paragraphs 26 to 38 of the statement of claim is refused." "The plaintiff's application for leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim served on 7 June 2018 is refused." 'The proceedings as against...