TW and Associates Pty Limited & Ors v Ireland & Ors [2000] NSWSC 1185

TW and Associates Pty Limited & Ors v Ireland & Ors [2000] NSWSC 1185

The plaintiffs acted unreasonably by suing and maintaining proceedings against Mr Inwood without conducting a business name search, despite being given information showing he was not the proprietor or publisher and despite material indicating Crikey Media Pty Limited's involvement. The case against Mr Inwood was hopeless, so he was entitled to indemnity costs payable forthwith, and there was no basis to require the third defendant or Mr Mayne to indemnify the plaintiffs for costs caused by the plaintiffs' own conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Material Posted on an Internet Website / Notice of Motion for Leave to Discontinue Against the Second Defendant and Costs Following Discontinuance
Outcome
Leave to discontinue against the second defendant had been granted; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the second defendant's costs on an indemnity basis, payable forthwith, and their claim against the third defendant for those costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['publication on Website' 'domain Name Register Search' 'identity of Publisher' 'discontinuance' 'indemnity Costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['publication on Website' 'domain Name Register Search' 'identity of Publisher' 'discontinuance' 'indemnity 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings Concerning Material Posted on an Internet Website / Notice of Motion for Leave to Discontinue Against the Second Defendant and Costs Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in commencing or continuing proceedings against Andrew Inwood as alleged publisher without conducting available searches and despite information from his solicitors.' 'Whether the second defendant was entitled to indemnity costs upon discontinuance.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to have the third defendant or Stephen Mayne indemnify them for the costs payable to the second defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs acted unreasonably by suing and maintaining proceedings against Mr Inwood without conducting a business name search, despite being given information showing he was not the proprietor or publisher and despite material indicating Crikey Media Pty Limited's involvement. The case against Mr Inwood was hopeless, so he was entitled to indemnity costs payable forthwith, and there was no basis to require the third defendant or Mr Mayne to indemnify the plaintiffs for costs caused by the plaintiffs' own conduct.

Court Disposition

Leave to discontinue against the second defendant had been granted; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the second defendant's costs on an indemnity basis, payable forthwith, and their claim against the third defendant for those costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to the leave to discontinue against second defendant granted 6 December 2000, the plaintiffs are to pay that defendant's costs on an indemnity basis." 'Such costs are payable forthwith.' "The plaintiffs' claim against third defendant for payment of the costs referred to in (1) is dismissed." 'Plaintiffs...