Greinert v Brooker (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1904

Greinert v Brooker (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1904

Although the plaintiff had suffered significant delay through the defendants' unsuccessful attempts to formulate a cross-claim, the delay was not unexplained and the defendants' attempts to have the Channel Nine parties indemnify them and take over the proceedings were not to be criticised. The proposed amended cross-claim was ultimately accepted as being in proper form, and it would be unfair to prevent the defendants from filing it where they faced the plaintiff's claim as individuals and the alleged swelled damages from national television republication were a significant part of the plaintiff's potential damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application for Leave to File an Amended Cross Claim in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Leave granted to the defendants to file an amended cross-claim, with costs orders and the proceedings stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Amended Cross Claim' 'delay' 'discretionary Refusal of Leave' 'costs' 'cross Claims']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['leave to File Amended Cross Claim' 'delay' 'discretionary Refusal of Leave' 'costs' 'cross Claims']

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

Civil Procedure Application for Leave to File an Amended Cross Claim in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be granted leave to file an amended cross-claim against the proposed cross-defendants after earlier unsuccessful attempts to plead a cross-claim in proper form.' "Whether leave should be refused on discretionary grounds because of delay, prejudice to the plaintiff, and the defendants' earlier litigation choices." 'What costs orders should be made in respect of the several arguments concerning the proposed cross-claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff had suffered significant delay through the defendants' unsuccessful attempts to formulate a cross-claim, the delay was not unexplained and the defendants' attempts to have the Channel Nine parties indemnify them and take over the proceedings were not to be criticised. The proposed amended cross-claim was ultimately accepted as being in proper form, and it would be unfair to prevent the defendants from filing it where they faced the plaintiff's claim as individuals and the alleged swelled damages from national television republication were a significant part of the plaintiff's potential damages.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the defendants to file an amended cross-claim, with costs orders and the proceedings stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['I grant leave to the defendants to file an amended cross-claim in the form of the draft presented at Court on 23 November 2018.' "I order the defendants to pay the cross defendants' costs of the arguments heard on 23 October 2018 and 2 November 2018." "I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the...