Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Limited & 3 Ors Konstantinidis v Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1054

Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Limited & 3 Ors Konstantinidis v Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1054

The Further Amended Defence filed on 8 December 1997 had been irregularly received but, given the plaintiff's acceptance by 20 May 1998, leave should be granted and deemed exercised by that filing. The plaintiff was entitled to ordinary costs of the earlier applications and related hearings, but indemnity costs were not justified because the defendants' lack of success and conduct did not establish an ulterior motive, improper disregard of court or party resources, or other basis for departing from the usual rule. Translation disputes should be particularised and, if necessary, separately determined before any jury determination under s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Translations and Foreshadowed Severance of a Cross Claim
Outcome
Leave granted to file the Further Amended Defence; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs in accordance with the reasons; matters listed for further directions.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'indemnity Costs' 'translation of Foreign Language Publications' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'cross Claim Severance']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'indemnity Costs' 'translation of Foreign Language Publications' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'cross Claim Severance']

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 Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Translations and Foreshadowed Severance of a Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be ordered in respect of applications dealt with in the judgment delivered on 8 August 1997.' 'Whether the Amended Defence filed on 3 September 1997 complied with the orders made on 8 August 1997 and what status should be given to the Further Amended Defence filed on 8 December 1997.' 'How issues about translation of the matters complained of should be determined.' 'Whether a foreshadowed application to sever a cross-claim should proceed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Further Amended Defence filed on 8 December 1997 had been irregularly received but, given the plaintiff's acceptance by 20 May 1998, leave should be granted and deemed exercised by that filing. The plaintiff was entitled to ordinary costs of the earlier applications and related hearings, but indemnity costs were not justified because the defendants' lack of success and conduct did not establish an ulterior motive, improper disregard of court or party resources, or other basis for departing from the usual rule. Translation disputes should be particularised and, if necessary, separately determined before any jury determination under s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file the Further Amended Defence; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs in accordance with the reasons; matters listed for further directions.

Orders

  • ['The defendants have leave to file a Further Amended Defence; that leave is deemed to have been exercised by the filing on 8 December 1997 of the Further Amended Defence in each action.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs in accordance with these reasons." 'The matters will be listed for further...