Nasr v Etihad Airways PJSC [2013] NSWCA 381

Nasr v Etihad Airways PJSC [2013] NSWCA 381

The applicant's claim for damages for defamation was commenced more than three years after the alleged publication, exceeding even the maximum limitation period under s 56A Limitation Act 1969, so the proceedings were statute-barred and the application for leave to appeal had no prospects of success.

Parties
Applicant: Nabil Nasr; First Respondent: Etihad Airways PJSC; Second Respondent: Omar Yassine
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Application for Leave to Appeal, Limitation Period, Strike Out – Statute Barred, Procedural Fairness
Practice and Procedure Defamation Application for Leave to Appeal Limitation Period Strike Out – Statute Barred Procedural Fairness

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nabil Nasr

Applicant

Etihad Airways PJSC

First Respondent

Omar Yassine

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for damages for defamation was statute-barred
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim for damages for defamation was commenced more than three years after the alleged publication, exceeding even the maximum limitation period under s 56A Limitation Act 1969, so the proceedings were statute-barred and the application for leave to appeal had no prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for leave dismissed with costs.