Munsie v Dowling [No 11] [2019] NSWSC 540

Munsie v Dowling [No 11] [2019] NSWSC 540

Leave to file the Notice of Motion was refused because the defamation proceedings had already been heard and judgment entered on all matters except costs, the defendant could provide no basis for proceeding with the motion or for joining new parties, and the supporting material provided no basis for the contempt orders sought. The recusal objection was rejected because the prior strike-out ruling did not involve consideration of the merits or the defendant's credit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Defamation Proceedings / Defendant Sought Leave to File a Notice of Motion After Final Judgment, With Only Costs Outstanding
Outcome
Leave to file Notice of Motion refused and Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to File Notice of Motion' 'defamation List' 'contempt Allegations' 'apprehended Bias' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation' 'contempt of Court'] ['leave to File Notice of Motion' 'defamation List' 'contempt Allegations' 'apprehended Bias' 'costs']

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

Procedural Ruling in Defamation Proceedings / Defendant Sought Leave to File a Notice of Motion After Final Judgment, With Only Costs Outstanding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted leave to file a Notice of Motion raising contempt of court allegations after judgment had been entered and only costs remained outstanding.' "Whether the judge should recuse himself on apprehended bias grounds because he had previously struck out the defendant's Amended Defence." 'Whether the respondents to the Notice of Motion should receive their costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the Notice of Motion was refused because the defamation proceedings had already been heard and judgment entered on all matters except costs, the defendant could provide no basis for proceeding with the motion or for joining new parties, and the supporting material provided no basis for the contempt orders sought. The recusal objection was rejected because the prior strike-out ruling did not involve consideration of the merits or the defendant's credit.

Court Disposition

Leave to file Notice of Motion refused and Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file Notice of Motion refused and Motion dismissed.' 'Defendant to pay the costs of the respondents to the Notice of Motion.']