Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 1207

Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 1207

The plaintiff had sufficient reason to commence and continue the defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court because he could reasonably have expected a larger verdict, the publication was on national television, the issues and defences were numerous and complex, and vindication of reputation was significant. Part 52A r 33(4)(e) did not apply because the plaintiff did not recover more than $75,000, and no discretionary reduction of costs was warranted. Indemnity costs were justified because the defendant persisted in litigating defences that were not properly available and that she or her legal representatives must have known would fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings; Costs Notices of Motion / Post Judgment Determination of Costs After Verdict for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs, with costs of the proceedings other than the notice of motion to be assessed on an indemnity basis; verdict entered for the plaintiff including interest.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'supreme Court Costs Thresholds' 'sufficient Reason for Commencing or Continuing Proceedings in the Supreme Court' 'indemnity Costs' 'untenable Defences' 'defamation Damages']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' 'supreme Court Costs Thresholds' 'sufficient Reason for Commencing or Continuing Proceedings in the Supreme Court' 'indemnity Costs' 'untenable Defences' 'defamation Damages']

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 Notices of Motion / Post Judgment Determination of Costs After Verdict for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs despite recovering less than the amount specified in Part 52A r 33(2) of the Supreme Court Rules.' "Whether the plaintiff's recoverable costs should be reduced to half of the amount otherwise payable." "Whether the plaintiff's costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis." 'Whether interest should be included in the verdict.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had sufficient reason to commence and continue the defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court because he could reasonably have expected a larger verdict, the publication was on national television, the issues and defences were numerous and complex, and vindication of reputation was significant. Part 52A r 33(4)(e) did not apply because the plaintiff did not recover more than $75,000, and no discretionary reduction of costs was warranted. Indemnity costs were justified because the defendant persisted in litigating defences that were not properly available and that she or her legal representatives must have known would fail.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs, with costs of the proceedings other than the notice of motion to be assessed on an indemnity basis; verdict entered for the plaintiff including interest.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's notice of motion is dismissed." "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings." "The plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings other than of this notice of motion are to be assessed on an indemnity basis." 'There will be a verdict for the plaintiff...