Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 156

Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 156

The Court ordered that the jury determine the questions of fact in two stages because s 62 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) authorised such a direction and s 22 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) did not preclude it; the staged process would significantly simplify directions and questions concerning contextual truth, reduce confusion caused by substantial overlap between the plaintiff's imputations and contextual imputations, and might avoid or better focus a disputed legal direction on the contextual truth defence, without unfairly altering the parties' tactical position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Tried With a Jury / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Whether Questions of Fact for the Jury Should Be Determined in Two Stages
Outcome
Order made directing the questions of fact to be determined by the jury in two stages.
Legal Topics
['trial With a Jury' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'directions as to Order of Determination of Questions of Fact' 'jury Questions']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['trial With a Jury' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'directions as to Order of Determination of Questions of Fact' 'jury Questions']

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 Tried With a Jury / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Whether Questions of Fact for the Jury Should Be Determined in Two Stages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had authority to direct the jury to answer questions of fact in two stages notwithstanding s 22 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether a two-stage process would unfairly give the defendants a second opportunity to address overlapping or identical imputations.' "Whether bifurcating the jury's task would simplify the contextual truth questions and reduce confusion arising from overlap between the plaintiff's imputations and contextual imputations." "Whether the order of determination could avoid or better inform a disputed direction concerning the contextual truth defence and any plaintiff's imputation found to be true."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered that the jury determine the questions of fact in two stages because s 62 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) authorised such a direction and s 22 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) did not preclude it; the staged process would significantly simplify directions and questions concerning contextual truth, reduce confusion caused by substantial overlap between the plaintiff's imputations and contextual imputations, and might avoid or better focus a disputed legal direction on the contextual truth defence, without unfairly altering the parties' tactical position.

Court Disposition

Order made directing the questions of fact to be determined by the jury in two stages.

Orders

  • ["First, the questions as to publication, whether the plaintiff's imputations are conveyed, whether the plaintiff's imputations are defamatory and whether those of the plaintiff's imputations to which the defence of justification is pleaded are substantially true." "Secondly, the questions raised by the contextual...