Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1850

Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1850

The pleadings against the first and sixth defendants are embarrassing due to inability to attribute precise words, failure to properly take advantage of interlocutory procedures, and insufficient particulars asserting publication liability; proceedings against them are dismissed and costs awarded on an indemnity basis. Pleading against the fourth defendant is struck out with leave to replead if particulars can be provided.

Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Dank; First Defendant: Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd; Second Defendant: Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Peter Overton; Fourth Defendant: Phil Rothfield; Fifth Defendant: Sarah Harris; Sixth Defendant: Damien Irvine
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Motion to Strike Out and Dismiss Pleadings
Outcome
Proceedings against first and sixth defendants dismissed; plaintiff to pay their costs on indemnity basis; claim against fourth defendant struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff to pay fourth defendant's costs of the argument.
Legal Topics
Oral Publication, Pleadings, Interlocutory Procedure
Defamation Oral Publication Pleadings Interlocutory Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Dank

Plaintiff

Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd

First Defendant

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Peter Overton

Third Defendant

Phil Rothfield

Fourth Defendant

Sarah Harris

Fifth Defendant

Damien Irvine

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Motion to Strike Out and Dismiss Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings are defective in alleging multiple oral statements as a single publication
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff failed to properly plead defamatory statements
  3. 3 Whether defendants can be made liable as publishers without sufficient particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings against the first and sixth defendants are embarrassing due to inability to attribute precise words, failure to properly take advantage of interlocutory procedures, and insufficient particulars asserting publication liability; proceedings against them are dismissed and costs awarded on an indemnity basis. Pleading against the fourth defendant is struck out with leave to replead if particulars can be provided.

Court Disposition

Proceedings against first and sixth defendants dismissed; plaintiff to pay their costs on indemnity basis; claim against fourth defendant struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff to pay fourth defendant's costs of the argument.

Orders

  • Proceedings as against first and sixth defendants dismissed.
  • Plaintiff ordered to pay first and sixth defendants' costs, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.