Lister v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1655

Lister v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1655

The Court allowed interrogatories 1 and 2 because the first interrogatory concerned the defendant's belief in the truth of particular attributions relating to the plaintiff, not merely the later pleading of imputations, and was not oppressive; the second interrogatory sought information on which any such belief was based and was distinct from the agreed interrogatory about information contained in the publication, making it important for the plaintiff's preparation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Second Listing; Interlocutory Dispute as to Plaintiff's Proposed Interrogatories
Outcome
Each of interrogatories 1 and 2 allowed; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the second listing on 2 June 2017; defendant to pay half the plaintiff's costs of today's application.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'qualified Privilege' "publisher's Belief in Truth of Imputations" 'costs of Interlocutory Application']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'qualified Privilege' "publisher's Belief in Truth of Imputations" 'costs of Interlocutory Application']

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 / Second Listing; Interlocutory Dispute as to Plaintiff's Proposed Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be required to answer an interrogatory asking whether, at the time of publication, it believed pleaded imputations to be true of the plaintiff.' 'Whether the defendant should be required to identify all information in its possession on which any such belief was based.' 'What costs orders should be made in relation to the second listing and the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed interrogatories 1 and 2 because the first interrogatory concerned the defendant's belief in the truth of particular attributions relating to the plaintiff, not merely the later pleading of imputations, and was not oppressive; the second interrogatory sought information on which any such belief was based and was distinct from the agreed interrogatory about information contained in the publication, making it important for the plaintiff's preparation.

Court Disposition

Each of interrogatories 1 and 2 allowed; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the second listing on 2 June 2017; defendant to pay half the plaintiff's costs of today's application.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff pay the costs of the second listing on 2 June 2017.' "The defendant pay half the plaintiff's costs of today."]