V'landys v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2020] FCA 1265

V'landys v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2020] FCA 1265

In the circumstances, the appropriate order was that Mr V'landys pay the ABC and Ms Meldrum-Hanna's costs of the interlocutory application because the amendment application was made late without adequate explanation, the respondents' opposition to the amendment and consequential discovery and interrogatories was justified and not unreasonable, an oral hearing was necessary to determine whether leave to amend was warranted, and the full scope of discovery and interrogatories sought by Mr V'landys was not permitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim and for Discovery and Interrogatories
Outcome
The applicant was ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 July 2020.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment' 'discovery' 'interrogatories' 'aggravated Damages Particulars']
['costs' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendment' 'discovery' 'interrogatories' 'aggravated Damages Particulars']

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 Proceeding / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim and for Discovery and Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant, having been granted leave to amend his statement of claim, should pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory application and costs thrown away by reason of the amendment." "Whether the respondents should instead pay the applicant's costs on the basis that costs follow the event."]

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances, the appropriate order was that Mr V'landys pay the ABC and Ms Meldrum-Hanna's costs of the interlocutory application because the amendment application was made late without adequate explanation, the respondents' opposition to the amendment and consequential discovery and interrogatories was justified and not unreasonable, an oral hearing was necessary to determine whether leave to amend was warranted, and the full scope of discovery and interrogatories sought by Mr V'landys was not permitted.

Court Disposition

The applicant was ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 July 2020.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 30 July 2020."]