Benhayon v Rockett (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1312

Benhayon v Rockett (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1312

The plaintiff did not establish that the number of publications, volume of teachings or possible expert evidence was of sufficient weight to overcome the defendant's important right to a jury trial; the issues were suitable for evaluation by a jury of ordinary reasonable people. The College of Universal Medicine failed to establish confidentiality justifying redaction because donor identities had been disclosed to the Australian Tax Office. The subpoenas to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark were too broad and based on speculation or fishing rather than a sufficient identified basis for production.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Procedural and Other Rulings Before Trial on Application to Dispense With Jury and Subpoena Issues
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to dispense with jury refused; application by College of Universal Medicine to produce redacted documents refused; subpoenas to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark set aside.
Legal Topics
['mode of Trial' 'jury Trial in Defamation Proceedings' 'subpoenas' 'confidentiality of Subpoenaed Documents' 'truth Defence' 'expert Evidence']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['mode of Trial' 'jury Trial in Defamation Proceedings' 'subpoenas' 'confidentiality of Subpoenaed Documents' 'truth Defence' 'expert Evidence']

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 Action / Procedural and Other Rulings Before Trial on Application to Dispense With Jury and Subpoena Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's application to dispense with a jury should be granted on the basis of complexity, multiplicity of issues, volume of material and expert evidence." 'Whether the College of Universal Medicine should be permitted to redact donor identities from documents produced under subpoena on confidentiality grounds.' 'Whether subpoenas issued to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark should be set aside as speculative or fishing subpoenas.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that the number of publications, volume of teachings or possible expert evidence was of sufficient weight to overcome the defendant's important right to a jury trial; the issues were suitable for evaluation by a jury of ordinary reasonable people. The College of Universal Medicine failed to establish confidentiality justifying redaction because donor identities had been disclosed to the Australian Tax Office. The subpoenas to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark were too broad and based on speculation or fishing rather than a sufficient identified basis for production.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to dispense with jury refused; application by College of Universal Medicine to produce redacted documents refused; subpoenas to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark set aside.

Orders

  • ['College of Universal Medicine directed to produce un-redacted documents in answer to the subpoena directed to it.' 'The subpoenas issued to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark are set aside.']