Mallegowda v Sood [2019] NSWCA 37

Mallegowda v Sood [2019] NSWCA 37

The applicant did not establish any error sufficient to warrant leave to appeal: the expert evidence and Google documents were admissible; the test for publication was correctly applied; there was no substantial error regarding oral evidence weight; defences of justification and statutory qualified privilege were made out; and the proposed appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success.

Parties
Applicant: Shashikanth Mallegowda; First Respondent: Amit Sood; Second Respondent: Naveen Lingaiah
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Subpoena Procedure, Publishing Defamatory Content, Justification Defence, Statutory Qualified Privilege, Application for Leave to Appeal, Assessment of Damages
Civil Procedure Defamation Admissibility of Evidence Subpoena Procedure Publishing Defamatory Content Justification Defence Statutory Qualified Privilege Application for Leave to Appeal +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shashikanth Mallegowda

Applicant

Amit Sood

First Respondent

Naveen Lingaiah

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in admitting into evidence expert reports based on documents produced under subpoena
  2. 2 Whether the subpoena should not have been issued without leave prior to close of pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred in applying the test in Webb v Bloch to the applicant's liability for publication

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish any error sufficient to warrant leave to appeal: the expert evidence and Google documents were admissible; the test for publication was correctly applied; there was no substantial error regarding oral evidence weight; defences of justification and statutory qualified privilege were made out; and the proposed appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.