Ieremia v Skalkos & Anor [1999] NSWSC 76

Ieremia v Skalkos & Anor [1999] NSWSC 76

The application for expedition was refused because the plaintiff's situation, while involving inconvenience and disruption related to a likely transfer out of the jurisdiction, did not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances required to justify removing the matter from its ordinary place in the list. Delays in the prosecution of the case were not fully explained and were partially attributable to the plaintiff. Mere convenience and anticipated disruption for the plaintiff did not outweigh the interests of other litigants or justify the granting of expedition.

Parties
Plaintiff: Rose Ieremia; First Defendant: Theodore Skalkos; Second Defendant: Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Expedition
Outcome
Application for expedition dismissed
Legal Topics
Application for Expedition, Case Management, Delay in Litigation
Defamation Civil Procedure Application for Expedition Case Management Delay in Litigation

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Ieremia

Plaintiff

Theodore Skalkos

First Defendant

Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Expedition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be expedited due to the plaintiff's impending transfer overseas
  2. 2 Whether delays in prosecution of the case warrant refusal of expedition
  3. 3 Whether 'convenience' is a sufficient ground for expedition of a defamation trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application for expedition was refused because the plaintiff's situation, while involving inconvenience and disruption related to a likely transfer out of the jurisdiction, did not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances required to justify removing the matter from its ordinary place in the list. Delays in the prosecution of the case were not fully explained and were partially attributable to the plaintiff. Mere convenience and anticipated disruption for the plaintiff did not outweigh the interests of other litigants or justify the granting of expedition.

Court Disposition

Application for expedition dismissed

Orders

  • The application for expedition is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of that application.