Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 3) - [2010] NSWDC 53

CITATION: Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 53
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 16 April 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 April 2010

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ

DECISION: (1) The Notice of Intention to Elect Trial by Jury in Defamation Proceedings (Form 23 UCPR 29.2) is struck out. These proceedings, which are currently provisionally listed for hearing on 19 July 2010, to be heard by a judge alone.
(2) Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS: TORT – defamation – defendant seeks a jury trial but fails to comply with provisions to requisition jury - plaintiff complains of defendant’s unreadiness for trial and seeks to join an additional defendant – both parties ask for hearing date to be vacated – hearing vacated and defendant’s application for jury trial struck out

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-62, 58(2) and 65
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Part 6 rr 6.24, 6.26(1) and 6.26(2)(a), and Part 29 r 29.2

CASES CITED: Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 41
Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 52
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 21
French v Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 127
Goldberg v Randel [2008] NSWDC 45
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; (1997) 145 ALR 96; (1997) 71 ALJR 818; [1997] 10 Leg Rep 2; (1997) Aust Torts Reports 81-434; [1997] HCA 25
Peters v Coastace [2006] NSWSC 289
Rodgers v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 275
Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331

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

FILE NUMBER(S): 1549 of 2009

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou
Defendant: Mr C A Evatt / Mr R Rasmussen

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

REASONS FOR DECISION FOR THE STRIKING OUT OF A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ELECT TRIAL BY JURY IN DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

[1] These are reasons for decision for the orders I made in these proceedings on 16 April 2010.

[2] These proceedings were commenced by Statement of Claim filed on 14 April 2009. The current pleading is the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 10 July 2009. The matter complained of is a letter emailed by the defendant to a number of media outlets, including Four Corners. It is alleged that the defendant is also liable for the republication by media organisations of what is contained in the matter complained of.

[3] The Defence filed on 7 August 2009 denies, or does not admit, every allegation in the Amended Statement of Claim. Defences of truth, contextual truth, common law (including the extension asserted to arise by reason of the implied right of freedom of speech under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Cth): see Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; (1997) 145 ALR 96; (1997) 71 ALJR 818;…

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. 3) 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 53
Decision Date: 16 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 3) involved a dispute over defamation, with Lloyd-Jones seeking a jury trial. The proceedings were before a judge in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Allen, objected to the defendant’s readiness for trial and sought to join an additional defendant, leading to both parties requesting the hearing date to be vacated.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Lloyd-Jones had complied with the necessary provisions to requisition a jury trial and whether Allen's objections to Lloyd-Jones's unreadiness and the proposed addition of a defendant were valid. The court had to determine if Lloyd-Jones's failure to comply with the jury requisition process warranted the striking out of his application for a jury trial and if the additional defendant should be joined in the proceedings.

In its decision, the court found that Lloyd-Jones had not adhered to the necessary provisions to requisition a jury trial as required by the law. Consequently, the court struck out Lloyd-Jones's Notice of Intention to Elect Trial by Jury. The court also noted Allen's objections regarding Lloyd-Jones's unreadiness for trial and the proposed addition of a defendant, which led to the hearing date being vacated. The court ruled that the proceedings would proceed before a judge alone, with costs reserved for future determination.

In summary, the court struck out the defendant's application for a jury trial due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and vacated the hearing date. The case was to be heard by a judge alone, with costs reserved for later consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Notice of Intention to Elect Trial by Jury in Defamation Proceedings (Form 23 UCPR 29.2) is struck out. These proceedings, which are currently provisionally listed for hearing on 19 July 2010, to be heard by a judge alone.

(2) Costs reserved.

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. 3) [2010] NSWDC 53 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	16 April 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	16 April 2010
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Gibson DCJ
DECISION:	(1) The Notice of Intention to Elect Trial by Jury in Defamation Proceedings (Form 23 UCPR 29.2) is struck out. These proceedings, which are currently provisionally listed for hearing on 19 July 2010, to be heard by a judge alone. (2) Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT – defamation – defendant seeks a jury trial but fails to comply with provisions to requisition jury - plaintiff complains of defendant’s unreadiness for trial and seeks to join an additional defendant – both parties ask for hearing date to be vacated – hearing vacated and defendant’s application for jury trial struck out
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-62, 58(2) and 65 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Part 6 rr 6.24, 6.26(1) and 6.26(2)(a), and Part 29 r 29.2
CASES CITED:	Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 41 Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 52 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 21 French v Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 127 Goldberg v Randel [2008] NSWDC 45 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520; (1997) 145 ALR 96; (1997) 71 ALJR 818; [1997] 10 Leg Rep 2; (1997) Aust Torts Reports 81-434; [1997] HCA 25 Peters v Coastace [2006] NSWSC 289 Rodgers v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 275 Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331
PARTIES:	Plaintiff: Anthony James Allen Defendant: Laurel Lloyd-Jones
FILE NUMBER(S):	1549 of 2009
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou Defendant: Mr C A Evatt / Mr R Rasmussen
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: Andrew Warren & Associates Defendant: Levitt Robinson Solicitors