Noble v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 121

Noble v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 121

Because there was plainly a conversation between Dr Phillips and the journalist, the admitted words did not comprise the whole exchange, and proceeding on the present uncertain pleading could generate unnecessary interlocutory costs, it was appropriate under pt 6 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to permit a limited interrogatory against the first and second defendants to ascertain the words communicated. The interrogatory was not allowed against the third and fourth defendants because they admitted publication of the article and there was no issue as to publication by them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Alleged Slander and Newspaper Publication / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to interrogate the first and second defendants only; application as against the third and fourth defendants refused.
Legal Topics
['slander' 'interrogatories' 'publication' 'defamation List Practice Note']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['slander' 'interrogatories' 'publication' 'defamation List Practice Note']

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

Defamation Proceedings Concerning Alleged Slander and Newspaper Publication / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave at an early stage to interrogate the first and second defendants to ascertain the precise words allegedly communicated to the journalist.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatory should also be allowed against the third and fourth defendants where they admit publication of the article.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was plainly a conversation between Dr Phillips and the journalist, the admitted words did not comprise the whole exchange, and proceeding on the present uncertain pleading could generate unnecessary interlocutory costs, it was appropriate under pt 6 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to permit a limited interrogatory against the first and second defendants to ascertain the words communicated. The interrogatory was not allowed against the third and fourth defendants because they admitted publication of the article and there was no issue as to publication by them.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to interrogate the first and second defendants only; application as against the third and fourth defendants refused.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff granted leave to interrogate the first and second defendants in the following terms: "Did you communicate [X] or words to that effect and if so what were the exact words communicated and in what form?"' "As between the plaintiff and the first and second defendants, the costs of the argument were ordered...