Spedding v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1963

Spedding v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1963

For the 2016 publications, the plaintiff was strongly advised by experienced senior and junior defamation counsel not to commence defamation proceedings until his criminal proceedings concluded, even though the limitation period would lapse; in those circumstances it was not reasonable for him to commence the 2016 defamation claims within one year. For the 2015 article, the evidence of advice was vague and did not persuade the Court that it was not reasonable to commence proceedings within time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Extension of Limitation Period
Outcome
Extension of time granted for the 2016 defamation causes of action pleaded in pars 3, 7 and 11 of the statement of claim; the notice of motion otherwise dismissed, including as to the 2015 article.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'defamation Limitation Period' 'not Reasonable Test' 'criminal Proceedings and Defamation Claims']
['defamation' 'limitation of Actions'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'defamation Limitation Period' 'not Reasonable Test' 'criminal Proceedings and Defamation Claims']

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 Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Extension of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced defamation proceedings within one year from publication of the 2016 articles and Facebook link.' 'Whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced defamation proceedings within one year from publication of the 27 April 2015 article.' 'If the not reasonable test was satisfied, whether the limitation period should be extended to 22 March 2018.']

Ratio Decidendi

For the 2016 publications, the plaintiff was strongly advised by experienced senior and junior defamation counsel not to commence defamation proceedings until his criminal proceedings concluded, even though the limitation period would lapse; in those circumstances it was not reasonable for him to commence the 2016 defamation claims within one year. For the 2015 article, the evidence of advice was vague and did not persuade the Court that it was not reasonable to commence proceedings within time.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted for the 2016 defamation causes of action pleaded in pars 3, 7 and 11 of the statement of claim; the notice of motion otherwise dismissed, including as to the 2015 article.

Orders

  • ['That the limitation period for bringing an action on the causes of action for defamation pleaded in pars 3, 7 and 11 of the statement of claim filed 22 March 2018 be extended to 22 March 2018.' "That the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 1 May 2018 otherwise be dismissed."]