Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 3)

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.