Wecker v Davison [2020] NSWCA 264

Wecker v Davison [2020] NSWCA 264

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no question of principle and no arguable error in the decisions below. The defamation claim against the first respondent was commenced more than nine years after the publication complained of and was barred by ss 14B and 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The applicant's arguments about procedural fairness, voidness, hearsay, delay caused by other proceedings and Muldrock error did not affect the limitation bar. The later processes seeking to relitigate the dismissed claim were misconceived, and the claims against the third respondent were dismissed after the applicant indicated he wished to withdraw them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Civil Proceedings / Court of Appeal Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal and Notice of Motion
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal and notice of motion dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs; claims against the third respondent dismissed with no order as to costs in the proceeding below.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'statute Barred Defamation Claim' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'limitation of Actions'] ['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'statute Barred Defamation Claim' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal in Civil Proceedings / Court of Appeal Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal and Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from orders of Sackar J and Wright J concerning the applicant's defamation proceeding and attempted appeal processes." "Whether the applicant's defamation claim against the first respondent was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)." "Whether the applicant's further notice of motion seeking a declaration that the first respondent's case was void ab initio and financial compensation was misconceived or an abuse of process." "Whether the applicant's claims for relief against the third respondent should be dismissed after the applicant indicated he wished to withdraw them."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no question of principle and no arguable error in the decisions below. The defamation claim against the first respondent was commenced more than nine years after the publication complained of and was barred by ss 14B and 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The applicant's arguments about procedural fairness, voidness, hearsay, delay caused by other proceedings and Muldrock error did not affect the limitation bar. The later processes seeking to relitigate the dismissed claim were misconceived, and the claims against the third respondent were dismissed after the applicant indicated he wished to withdraw them.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal and notice of motion dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs; claims against the third respondent dismissed with no order as to costs in the proceeding below.

Orders

  • ['The summons seeking leave to appeal filed on 4 August 2020 and the notice of motion filed by the applicant on 8 September 2020 are dismissed.' "Order that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the summons and notice of motion." "Order that the applicant's claims for relief in proceeding 2019/294837 against...