Massarani v Kriz [2020] NSWCA 252

Massarani v Kriz [2020] NSWCA 252

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's decision was an orthodox ruling striking out deficient defamation pleadings that failed to articulate reasonable causes of action, coupled with a discretionary refusal of leave to replead that was open on the evidence. The applicant did not establish relevant error: there was no real prospect shown of identifying any person who downloaded the archived article or accessed the Facebook link within the limitation period and understood it to refer to him, and the pleaded 2018 conversation failed to set out the words attributed to Ms Kriz. Proportionality was permissibly considered in deciding whether to grant the indulgence of further...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Defamation Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'leave to Replead' 'proportionality' 'publication and Identification in Defamation' 'limitation Period for Defamation']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'leave to Replead' 'proportionality' 'publication and Identification in Defamation' 'limitation Period for Defamation']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal in Defamation Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from interlocutory orders summarily dismissing parts of a defamation action in the District Court.' 'Whether the proposed appeal provided an appropriate occasion for appellate consideration of the proportionality principle discussed in Bleyer v Google Inc.' 'Whether the claims against the respondents disclosed a reasonable cause of action or were liable to be struck out for pleading deficiencies.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to replead, including by taking account of considerations of proportionality.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge's decision was an orthodox ruling striking out deficient defamation pleadings that failed to articulate reasonable causes of action, coupled with a discretionary refusal of leave to replead that was open on the evidence. The applicant did not establish relevant error: there was no real prospect shown of identifying any person who downloaded the archived article or accessed the Facebook link within the limitation period and understood it to refer to him, and the pleaded 2018 conversation failed to set out the words attributed to Ms Kriz. Proportionality was permissibly considered in deciding whether to grant the indulgence of further...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application for leave to appeal from the judgment in the District Court.' "Order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application."]