Dank v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1145

Dank v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1145

The defendant did not persuade the Court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings unless security was provided. Although the plaintiff was treated as probably impecunious and there was close identity between particulars in the earlier and present defamation proceedings, the present claim was an entirely separate cause of action concerning different publications and a different defendant, the plaintiff did not owe the earlier costs to this defendant, the commonality of evidence and admissibility of collateral allegations were difficult to assess at this stage, the expert evidence might be contested in a different forensic landscape, and the case was not shown to be hopeless,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Defendant for Security for Costs and a Stay of Proceedings Unless Security Is Provided
Outcome
Defendant's application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'impecuniosity of Individual Plaintiff' 'commonality With Earlier Defamation Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'impecuniosity of Individual Plaintiff' 'commonality With Earlier Defamation Proceedings']

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 Application by the Defendant for Security for Costs and a Stay of Proceedings Unless Security Is Provided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should stay the plaintiff's defamation proceedings unless he provides security for the defendant's costs under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) where r 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules was not applicable." "Whether the plaintiff's apparent impecuniosity, recent lack of success in similar defamation proceedings, and overlap of issues justified a stay pending security for costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not persuade the Court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings unless security was provided. Although the plaintiff was treated as probably impecunious and there was close identity between particulars in the earlier and present defamation proceedings, the present claim was an entirely separate cause of action concerning different publications and a different defendant, the plaintiff did not owe the earlier costs to this defendant, the commonality of evidence and admissibility of collateral allegations were difficult to assess at this stage, the expert evidence might be contested in a different forensic landscape, and the case was not shown to be hopeless,...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']