Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd [2016] NSWSC 920

Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd [2016] NSWSC 920

Objectively assessed, the solicitors' correspondence showed that the parties intended to be bound immediately when the defendants' solicitor accepted the negotiated terms on 30 April 2015. In the setting of a concerns notice under the Defamation Act, the plaintiff's solicitor had ostensible authority to settle the dispute without proceedings. The release extended to all pleaded matters, including the fourth matter complained of, because it arose out of the same reporting concerns. Since the plaintiff had released the defendants from liability before commencing the proceedings, the proceedings were an abuse of process and should be permanently stayed under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notice of Motion Seeking Declaratory Relief as to an Alleged Settlement Agreement and an Order Staying or Dismissing the Proceedings
Outcome
Proceedings permanently stayed
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'settlement Agreement' 'ostensible Authority of Solicitor' 'concerns Notice Under the Defamation Act' 'release of Liability' 'abuse of Process']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'settlement Agreement' 'ostensible Authority of Solicitor' 'concerns Notice Under the Defamation Act' 'release of Liability' 'abuse of Process']

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 Seeking Declaratory Relief as to an Alleged Settlement Agreement and an Order Staying or Dismissing the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement before execution of a deed of release.' "Whether the plaintiff's solicitor had ostensible authority to bind the plaintiff to the settlement agreement." 'Whether the release extended to the fourth matter complained of, which was not expressly referred to in the concerns notice.' 'Whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process because they were commenced after release of the defendants from liability.']

Ratio Decidendi

Objectively assessed, the solicitors' correspondence showed that the parties intended to be bound immediately when the defendants' solicitor accepted the negotiated terms on 30 April 2015. In the setting of a concerns notice under the Defamation Act, the plaintiff's solicitor had ostensible authority to settle the dispute without proceedings. The release extended to all pleaded matters, including the fourth matter complained of, because it arose out of the same reporting concerns. Since the plaintiff had released the defendants from liability before commencing the proceedings, the proceedings were an abuse of process and should be permanently stayed under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act...

Court Disposition

Proceedings permanently stayed

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are permanently stayed pursuant to s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).']