Stanizzo v Sassu [2014] NSWDC 90

Stanizzo v Sassu [2014] NSWDC 90

The amended statement of claim against the first to fourth defendants failed to identify the publications with sufficient particularity and any order compelling the defendants to identify and set out all relevant conversations and documents would be an impermissible fishing expedition. The pleadings were embarrassing and failed to comply with r 15.19 UCPR. In any event, the pleaded publications identified by working backwards from affidavits in the Supreme Court probate proceedings were protected by absolute privilege under s 27(2) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the First to Fourth Defendants for Summary Dismissal of the Statement of Claim Filed on 14 April 2014
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants dismissed; costs reserved; plaintiff and fifth defendant given leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable.
Legal Topics
['adequacy of Pleading of Publication' 'discovery and Interrogatories' 'fishing Expedition' 'absolute Privilege' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'common Interest Privilege' 'summary Dismissal']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence and Privilege'] ['adequacy of Pleading of Publication' 'discovery and Interrogatories' 'fishing Expedition' 'absolute Privilege' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'common Interest Privilege' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the First to Fourth Defendants for Summary Dismissal of the Statement of Claim Filed on 14 April 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's failure to seek early discovery and/or interrogatories about publication warranted striking out the proceedings against the first to fourth defendants." 'Whether any future application for discovery or interrogatories by the plaintiff would be a fishing expedition.' 'Whether the publications in question were protected under s 27(2) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) or at common law, where the matters complained of consisted of conversations the defendants had with their solicitors and/or each other in relation to material contained in affidavits in probate proceedings before the Supreme Court Equity Division.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim against the first to fourth defendants failed to identify the publications with sufficient particularity and any order compelling the defendants to identify and set out all relevant conversations and documents would be an impermissible fishing expedition. The pleadings were embarrassing and failed to comply with r 15.19 UCPR. In any event, the pleaded publications identified by working backwards from affidavits in the Supreme Court probate proceedings were protected by absolute privilege under s 27(2) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants dismissed; costs reserved; plaintiff and fifth defendant given leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants dismissed." 'Costs of the proceedings against the first to fourth defendants reserved, with liberty to apply.' 'The plaintiff and fifth defendant have leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable.']