YZ v Amazon (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1539

YZ v Amazon (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1539

The amended statement of claim was substantially in accordance with the earlier reasons. The plaintiff had used her best endeavours to comply, and the identified departures in imputations C to F, K, L, M and O were either insubstantial, capable of clarification, or within the leave implicitly or expressly granted. Accordingly, the self-executing order had not dismissed the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Whether an Amended Statement of Claim Complied With a Previous Self Executing Order
Outcome
The amended statement of claim filed 6 October 2015 was ruled to have been filed in accordance with the order made on 21 September 2015, and the proceedings were not automatically dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'self Executing Orders' 'substantial Compliance']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'self Executing Orders' 'substantial Compliance']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Whether an Amended Statement of Claim Complied With a Previous Self Executing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim filed on 6 October 2015 was filed in accordance with the reasons published on 21 August 2015 and the order made on 21 September 2015.' 'Whether any departure from the earlier ruling meant the self-executing order dismissing the proceedings had executed itself.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim was substantially in accordance with the earlier reasons. The plaintiff had used her best endeavours to comply, and the identified departures in imputations C to F, K, L, M and O were either insubstantial, capable of clarification, or within the leave implicitly or expressly granted. Accordingly, the self-executing order had not dismissed the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The amended statement of claim filed 6 October 2015 was ruled to have been filed in accordance with the order made on 21 September 2015, and the proceedings were not automatically dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The amended statement of claim filed 6 October 2015 was filed in accordance with the order made on 21 September 2015.' 'The self-executing order has not executed itself.' 'For imputation L, the words "and/or reputation" should be struck out so that it refers to the plaintiff threatening to ruin her husband\'s...