O'Shanassy v Turland (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 23

O'Shanassy v Turland (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 23

The court determined that all relevant factors—including adequacy of explanation, prejudice to parties, court resources, and public confidence—favoured standing over determination of the plaintiff's Notice of Motion regarding contextual imputations to the trial judge. Immediate determination risked unnecessary adjournment and would not substantially advantage the plaintiff, while no sufficient prejudice to the defendant was demonstrated.

Parties
Plaintiff: Paul O'Shanassy; Defendant: Gary Turland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to be determined by Judge Gibson is refused with costs; application for rulings under UCPR r 14.28 stood over to the trial judge; general access to Westpac subpoena documents; timetable for costs argument to be provided.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Procedural Orders, Contextual Justification, Strike Out Applications
Tort Defamation Procedural Orders Contextual Justification Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul O'Shanassy

Plaintiff

Gary Turland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application to strike out contextual imputations should be determined prior to trial or stood over to the trial judge
  2. 2 Adequacy of explanation for late application
  3. 3 Prejudice to parties from late determination

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that all relevant factors—including adequacy of explanation, prejudice to parties, court resources, and public confidence—favoured standing over determination of the plaintiff's Notice of Motion regarding contextual imputations to the trial judge. Immediate determination risked unnecessary adjournment and would not substantially advantage the plaintiff, while no sufficient prejudice to the defendant was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to be determined by Judge Gibson is refused with costs; application for rulings under UCPR r 14.28 stood over to the trial judge; general access to Westpac subpoena documents; timetable for costs argument to be provided.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for his Notice of Motion filed on 18 December 2024 to be determined by Judge Gibson is refused with costs.
  • Plaintiff's application for rulings pursuant to UCPR r 14.28 concerning s 26(1)(a) and (b) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), as set out in the Notice of Motion filed on 18 December 2024, is stood over to the trial judge.