Rene Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 587

Rene Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 587

The stay was refused because no evidence showed that the plaintiff could not repay any amount if the defendant succeeded on appeal, and no circumstances warranted displacing the presumption that the judgment was correct. The plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the 7A trial and the proceedings before Cripps AJ because he succeeded in vindicating his reputation, the defendant failed on the relevant issues before Cripps AJ, and the partial success on imputations did not justify reducing costs. Part 52A Rule 33 did not limit the costs order because the proceedings involved legal complexity, the broadcast was Australia-wide to an audience exceeding one million, no application had been made...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Costs Judgment After Jury Verdict; Defendant's Application for Stay of Proceedings Refused
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $162,866.91; defendant's stay application refused; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings; issue of costs of two counsel left to the assessor.
Legal Topics
['apportionment of Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'supreme Court Rules Part 52 a Rule 33' 'defamatory Imputations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['apportionment of Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'supreme Court Rules Part 52 a Rule 33' 'defamatory Imputations']

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 / Costs Judgment After Jury Verdict; Defendant's Application for Stay of Proceedings Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether judgment should be stayed pending the defendant's intended appeal against quantum." "Whether the plaintiff's costs of the 7A trial should be reduced because the defendant succeeded on some imputations." 'Whether Supreme Court Rules Part 52A Rule 33 limited the plaintiff to half costs because the amount recovered was below the prescribed amount.' 'Whether the defendant should pay the costs of two counsel for the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because no evidence showed that the plaintiff could not repay any amount if the defendant succeeded on appeal, and no circumstances warranted displacing the presumption that the judgment was correct. The plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the 7A trial and the proceedings before Cripps AJ because he succeeded in vindicating his reputation, the defendant failed on the relevant issues before Cripps AJ, and the partial success on imputations did not justify reducing costs. Part 52A Rule 33 did not limit the costs order because the proceedings involved legal complexity, the broadcast was Australia-wide to an audience exceeding one million, no application had been made...

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $162,866.91; defendant's stay application refused; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings; issue of costs of two counsel left to the assessor.

Orders

  • ['Judgment directed to be entered in the sum of $162,866.91.' 'The application for a stay of proceedings is refused.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of proceedings." 'The question of costs of briefing more than one counsel is left to the assessor.']