McBride v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] NSWSC 10

McBride v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] NSWSC 10

The defendants did not establish that any prolonged examination of publications or any scientific investigation likely to be required at trial could not conveniently be undertaken with a jury. The central issue was the plaintiff's conduct concerning use of scientific material, not the validity of complex scientific theories, and the jury and judge would likely have the benefit of evidence from the plaintiff and Dr McCredie to explain the documents and research. The defendants identified complexity in some pleaded matters but did not identify specific features of evidence that would be unusually difficult for a jury to comprehend.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notice of Motion Under S 89(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1970 for All Issues of Fact to Be Tried Without a Jury
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['jury Trial' 'application to Dispense With Jury' 'prolonged Examination of Documents' 'scientific Investigation' 'truth and Contextual Truth Defences']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['jury Trial' 'application to Dispense With Jury' 'prolonged Examination of Documents' 'scientific Investigation' 'truth and Contextual Truth Defences']

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 / Defendants' Notice of Motion Under S 89(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1970 for All Issues of Fact to Be Tried Without a Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants established that a prolonged examination of documents was required and could not conveniently be made with a jury under s 89(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1970.' 'Whether the defendants established that scientific investigation was required and could not conveniently be made with a jury under s 89(2)(a) Supreme Court Act 1970.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not establish that any prolonged examination of publications or any scientific investigation likely to be required at trial could not conveniently be undertaken with a jury. The central issue was the plaintiff's conduct concerning use of scientific material, not the validity of complex scientific theories, and the jury and judge would likely have the benefit of evidence from the plaintiff and Dr McCredie to explain the documents and research. The defendants identified complexity in some pleaded matters but did not identify specific features of evidence that would be unusually difficult for a jury to comprehend.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' "The defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs."]