Dank v Rothfield [2015] NSWCA 193

Dank v Rothfield [2015] NSWCA 193

The particulars pleaded against Mr Rothfield in the FASC did not satisfy the test for liability as an original publisher as established by Webb v Bloch and subsequent authorities, and the leave application raised no issue of principle or significant injustice. Therefore, leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'publication' 'original Publisher Liability' 'interlocutory Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['pleading' 'publication' 'original Publisher Liability' 'interlocutory Orders']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether particulars pleaded against Mr Rothfield establish liability as an original publisher of defamatory matter in a television broadcast' 'Whether the application for leave to appeal raises an issue of principle or significant injustice']

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars pleaded against Mr Rothfield in the FASC did not satisfy the test for liability as an original publisher as established by Webb v Bloch and subsequent authorities, and the leave application raised no issue of principle or significant injustice. Therefore, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application."]