Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) - [2010] NSWDC 41

CITATION: Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 41

HEARING DATE(S): 12 March 2010; 15 March 2010 (plaintiff’s written submissions); 19 March 2010 (defendant’s written submissions)

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 March 2010

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ

DECISION: (1) The defendant is to provide further and better answers to interrogatories 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, with verification, by Monday 29 March at 5:00 pm.
(2) The defendant may serve the interrogatories by fax or email in order to comply with the time frame in order 1.
(3) Order 1 is self-executing in nature.
(4) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of this application.

CATCHWORDS: TORT - defamation - further and better answers to interrogatories

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1(1)

CASES CITED: AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; (2009) 258 ALR 14; (2009) 83 ALJR 951; [2009] HCA 27
Aspar Autobahn v Dovala Pty Ltd & Ors (1987) 74 ALR 550
Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60
Bryson v Casey [2002] NSWSC 636
Cayron v Crevelli (1896) 18 ALT 83
Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 587
Mallick v McGeown [2008] NSWSC 129
Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No. 3) [1992] 1 Qd R 587
W A Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 30 ALR 559
Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 508

TEXTS CITED: The Honourable Justice Hayne, “The Vanishing Trial” (2008) The Judicial Review 33

PARTIES: Plaintiff: Anthony James Allen
Defendant: Laurel Lloyd-Jones

FILE NUMBER(S): 1549 of 2009

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou
Defendant: Mr R Rasmussen

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Andrew Warren & Associates
Defendant: Levitt Robinson Solicitors

Judgment

[1] The plaintiff commenced proceedings by Statement of Claim filed on 14 April 2009 concerning a publication of a letter on 7 February 2009 by the defendant to the Premier. The letter was also sent to a number of media outlets. Defences of truth, contextual truth, fair comment, honest opinion, qualified privilege (including a defence of an implied right of freedom of speech) and unlikelihood of harm have been pleaded in a Defence filed on 7 August 2009. The matter has been set down for hearing as a two-week jury trial commencing Tuesday 27 April 2010.

[2] The matter complained of is asserted to convey the following imputations:

(a) the plaintiff, the Mayor of Bega Valley Shire, conducted himself inappropriately as Mayor in that he bullied a woman;

(b) the plaintiff, the Mayor of Bega Valley Shire, conducted himself inappropriately as Mayor in that he attended a woman’s home against her express wishes;

(c) the plaintiff intimidated a woman by acting in a bullying and overpowering manner over the phone;

(d) the plaintiff was aggressive towards a woman in her home;

(e) the plaintiff intimidated a woman for the purposes of forcing her to rescind a complaint…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWDC 41
Decision Date: 19 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) involved a dispute over defamation, with the plaintiff seeking to compel the defendant to provide more comprehensive responses to interrogatories. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which retained jurisdiction to manage the procedural aspects of the litigation. The plaintiff sought further and better answers to specific interrogatories, alleging that the defendant's initial responses were insufficient.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's answers to the interrogatories were adequate and whether further elaboration was necessary to facilitate the resolution of the defamation claim. The legal issues centred on the standard of detail required in responses to interrogatories and the court's discretion in ensuring that the litigation process was not unduly delayed or prejudiced by inadequate answers.

The court found that the defendant's answers were insufficient and ordered that further and better answers be provided to the specified interrogatories by a specified date. The court emphasised the importance of timely and comprehensive responses to interrogatories in ensuring the efficiency of the litigation process. Additionally, the court granted the defendant the flexibility to serve the interrogatories via fax or email to meet the deadline. The court also ruled that the defendant was to bear the plaintiff's costs associated with the application to compel further answers.

The court's orders mandated that the defendant provide the required responses by a specified date and allowed for the use of fax or email to meet this deadline. The court also stipulated that the defendant would be responsible for the plaintiff's costs related to the application. The ruling underscored the necessity for parties to provide detailed and accurate responses to interrogatories to support the effective administration of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The defendant is to provide further and better answers to interrogatories 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, with verification, by Monday 29 March at 5:00 pm.

(2) The defendant may serve the interrogatories by fax or email in order to comply with the time frame in order 1.

(3) Order 1 is self-executing in nature.

(4) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of this application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 41
HEARING DATE(S):	12 March 2010; 15 March 2010 (plaintiff’s written submissions); 19 March 2010 (defendant’s written submissions)
JUDGMENT DATE:	19 March 2010
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Gibson DCJ
DECISION:	(1) The defendant is to provide further and better answers to interrogatories 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, with verification, by Monday 29 March at 5:00 pm. (2) The defendant may serve the interrogatories by fax or email in order to comply with the time frame in order 1. (3) Order 1 is self-executing in nature. (4) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of this application.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT - defamation - further and better answers to interrogatories
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1(1)
CASES CITED:	AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; (2009) 258 ALR 14; (2009) 83 ALJR 951; [2009] HCA 27 Aspar Autobahn v Dovala Pty Ltd & Ors (1987) 74 ALR 550 Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60 Bryson v Casey [2002] NSWSC 636 Cayron v Crevelli (1896) 18 ALT 83 Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 587 Mallick v McGeown [2008] NSWSC 129 Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No. 3) [1992] 1 Qd R 587 W A Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 30 ALR 559 Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 508
TEXTS CITED:	The Honourable Justice Hayne, “The Vanishing Trial” (2008) The Judicial Review 33
PARTIES:	Plaintiff: Anthony James Allen Defendant: Laurel Lloyd-Jones
FILE NUMBER(S):	1549 of 2009
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou Defendant: Mr R Rasmussen
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: Andrew Warren & Associates Defendant: Levitt Robinson Solicitors