Gee v Jamieson [2023] NSWDC 123

Gee v Jamieson [2023] NSWDC 123

The defendant's application for a temporary stay is refused because the likelihood that a timely, determinative, and relevant outcome will issue from the Malaysian proceedings is remote and uncertain. The benefits of a stay are outweighed by the prejudice of further delay to the plaintiff and this proceeding, which should progress without waiting for uncertain foreign appeals. Costs for the defendant's unsuccessful stay application are to be paid by the defendant; costs of the resolved discovery dispute are costs in the cause.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mr T Gee; Defendant: Ms M Jamieson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—defendant's Notice of Motion for Interim Stay and Costs on Discovery Application
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion for temporary stay refused. Costs of the stay application awarded to plaintiff; discovery costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Orders, Foreign Disciplinary Proceedings Relevance, Contextual Truth Defence, Discovery, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Defamation Conflict of Laws Costs Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory Orders Foreign Disciplinary Proceedings Relevance Contextual Truth Defence +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr T Gee

Plaintiff

Ms M Jamieson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—defendant's Notice of Motion for Interim Stay and Costs on Discovery Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a temporary stay of NSW defamation proceedings pending the outcome of Malaysian High Court disciplinary appeal against the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the factual circumstances of the Malaysian proceeding justify procedural delay in NSW court
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment of costs from the defendant's discovery application after the plaintiff withdrew opposition

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's application for a temporary stay is refused because the likelihood that a timely, determinative, and relevant outcome will issue from the Malaysian proceedings is remote and uncertain. The benefits of a stay are outweighed by the prejudice of further delay to the plaintiff and this proceeding, which should progress without waiting for uncertain foreign appeals. Costs for the defendant's unsuccessful stay application are to be paid by the defendant; costs of the resolved discovery dispute are costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion for temporary stay refused. Costs of the stay application awarded to plaintiff; discovery costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The defendant's application for a temporary stay is refused and the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of that application.
  • The costs of the defendant's discovery application are costs in the cause.