Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Tabbaa [2018] NSWCA 243

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Tabbaa [2018] NSWCA 243

The application for security for costs was dismissed because Nine Network failed to establish that the appeals were hopeless or unarguable, and there was a reasonable argument, particularly regarding judicial impartiality and the proper application of the defence of honest opinion under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). Special circumstances justifying an order for security were not established; further, an order would stifle the appellants’ appeals due to their impecuniosity, and a public interest question was raised by Mr Tabbaa’s appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Nine Network Australia Pty Limited; Respondent: Mouhammad Tabbaa; Respondent: Pamela June Tabbaa
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Appeals / Court of Appeal Decision on Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals, Honest Opinion Defence, Procedural Fairness, Jury Directions, Bias in Judicial Proceedings
Defamation Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeals Honest Opinion Defence Procedural Fairness Jury Directions Bias in Judicial Proceedings

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

Parties

Nine Network Australia Pty Limited

Applicant

Mouhammad Tabbaa

Respondent

Pamela June Tabbaa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Appeals / Court of Appeal Decision on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to warrant security for costs in defamation appeals where appellants are impecunious
  2. 2 Whether grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable or hopeless
  3. 3 Whether alleged judicial conduct created procedural unfairness or appearance of bias impacting trial fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was dismissed because Nine Network failed to establish that the appeals were hopeless or unarguable, and there was a reasonable argument, particularly regarding judicial impartiality and the proper application of the defence of honest opinion under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). Special circumstances justifying an order for security were not established; further, an order would stifle the appellants’ appeals due to their impecuniosity, and a public interest question was raised by Mr Tabbaa’s appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent's notice of motion filed 11 July 2018 be dismissed with costs.