Buckley v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDC 90

Buckley v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDC 90

The plaintiff gave an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay: he was preoccupied and distressed by serious allegations, a workplace complaint and the coronial inquiry until at least September 2006, had health difficulties and concern for his father, and after consulting solicitors in January 2007 was wrongly advised that there was a six year limitation period. There was no assertion of actual prejudice. In those circumstances, and having regard to the broad and flexible discretion under s 56A and the statutory extension period, it was just and reasonable to extend time to 27 November 2007.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings
Outcome
Extension of time granted; costs orders made against the plaintiff; proceedings listed for further directions.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'delay in Commencing Defamation Proceedings' 'just and Reasonable Discretion' 'prejudice' 'explanation for Delay']
['defamation' 'limitation of Actions' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'delay in Commencing Defamation Proceedings' 'just and Reasonable Discretion' 'prejudice' 'explanation for Delay']

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 Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under s 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) for defamation proceedings commenced on 27 November 2007 in respect of publications dated 22 January 2005 and 23 January 2005.' "Whether the plaintiff's distress, involvement in a coronial inquiry, health issues, concern for his father and erroneous legal advice provided an adequate explanation for the delay." 'Whether granting the extension was just and reasonable in the absence of asserted actual prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff gave an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay: he was preoccupied and distressed by serious allegations, a workplace complaint and the coronial inquiry until at least September 2006, had health difficulties and concern for his father, and after consulting solicitors in January 2007 was wrongly advised that there was a six year limitation period. There was no assertion of actual prejudice. In those circumstances, and having regard to the broad and flexible discretion under s 56A and the statutory extension period, it was just and reasonable to extend time to 27 November 2007.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; costs orders made against the plaintiff; proceedings listed for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Extend time to commence proceedings pursuant to s 56A to 27 November 2007.' "Plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion and of the 4 April 2008." "Plaintiff pay the defendant's costs by reason of the filing of the Further Amended Statement of Claim." 'These proceedings are listed for further...