Badcock v Channel Seven Adelaide

The plaintiff, Badcock, appealed against orders made by a Master of the Federal Court on 29 May 2006. These orders allowed the plaintiff to lodge but not to file a proposed amended Statement of Claim by 7 August 2006, subject to certain conditions. The plaintiff sought an extension of time to appeal against these orders and, in effect, against orders made on 19 December 2003, 13 April 2004 and 1 July 2004. The plaintiff was unrepresented, and the notice of appeal was filed two months late. The court needed to decide whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal, whether there was a sufficient basis to justify granting an extension of time, whether there was an arguable case and whether the appeal was otiose.

The court found that the plaintiff’s appeal was without merit and indeed otiose. The orders sought by the plaintiff had no relation to the orders made on 29 May 2006, as the plaintiff had attempted to re-agitate issues that had been the subject of previous orders. The opportunity afforded to the plaintiff by the Master was to prepare an adequate pleading in defamation, and to raise other issues such as the joinder of other defendants. Despite warnings from the Court, including those in the Reasons of His Honour Judge Clayton, there had been no compliant Statement of Claim produced. The court found that the question whether a satisfactory Statement of Claim could be prepared was a matter for the Master to determine, but noted that the history of the interlocutory process led to the proper inference that the plaintiff was incapable of pleading the remaining cause of action in defamation.

In conclusion, the court declined to extend the time for the plaintiff to appeal and dismissed the appeal insofar as it was necessary. The court found that the orders sought by the plaintiff had no relation to the orders made on 29 May 2006, and that the plaintiff had attempted to re-agitate issues that had been the subject of previous orders. The court found that the plaintiff’s appeal was without merit and indeed otiose. The court will hear the parties as to costs.