Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 53 min read

BATEMAN AND IDAMENEO (NO 123) PTY LIMITED V FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED AND ORS
[2013] ACTSC 72 (26 April 2013)

COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – jurisdiction – cross-vesting legislation – action for damages for defamation – application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of New South Wales – transfers in the interests of justice – factors to be considered – place of the tort, the applicable law, location of the parties, procedural matters such as trial by jury, convenience and expense, place of vindication – transfer ordered

COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – jurisdiction – cross-vesting legislation – action for damages for defamation – application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of New South Wales – transfers in the interests of justice – factors to be considered – existence of an onus on the applicant – onus not relevant

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 121, 123, 126, 129, 130
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 205D
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 11, 14, 17, 18, 21, Pt 3
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 143, 174
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 20
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW), s 5(3)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT), s 5(2)
Protection of Public Participation Act 2008 (ACT)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 13, 22
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 51

Commonwealth Constitution, ss 73, 118

Arrowcrest Group Pty Ltd v Advertiser News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd (1993) 113 FLR 57
Arrowcrest Group Pty Ltd v Advertiser News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Miles CJ, 19 July 1989)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Reading [2004] NSWCA 411
Australian Zircon NL v Austpac Resources NL (2010) 243 FLR 423
Baffsky v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1990) 97 ACTR 1
Bankinvest AG v Seabrook (1988) 92 FLR 153
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400
BHP Billiton Ltd v Stephens [2011] NSWSC 675
Bourke v State Bank of New South Wales (1988) 22 FCR 378
British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Gordon [2007] NSWSC 230
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Zunic (2001) 122 IR 170
Callwood v Callwood [1960] AC 659
Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2010] NSWSC 709
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells [2011] NSWCA 246
Chesterton v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 47
Cini v Pets Paradise Franchising (SA) Pty Ltd (2008) 102 SASR 177
Crosby v Kelly (2012) 203 FCR 451
David Syme & Co Ltd v Grey (1992) 38 FCR 303
Dawson v Baker (1994) 123 FLR 194
Eden v Amaca Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 374
Ewins v BHP Billiton Ltd [2005] VSC 4
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89
Fraser v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1909) 8 CLR 54
Hayward v Barratt [2000] NSWSC 708
Holt v Forehan [2006] VSC 148
Irwin v Queensland [2011] VSC 291
Jackson v…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd 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
[2013] ACTSC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff sought damages for defamation, and the defendant, a media company, contested the claim. The initial proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. However, the plaintiff applied for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, citing the benefits of such a transfer under cross-vesting legislation. The court was required to determine whether the transfer was in the interests of justice, considering various factors including the place of the alleged tort, applicable law, the location of the parties, and procedural matters.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was an onus on the applicant to justify the transfer and the specific factors that should be weighed in determining the interests of justice. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence on the matter. The court held that while there was no onus on the applicant to justify the transfer, the interests of justice were the paramount consideration. Factors such as the place of the tort, the applicable law, the location of the parties, and the procedural aspects, including the right to trial by jury, were pertinent. The court also noted the importance of ensuring the vindication of rights occurs in the most appropriate forum.

The court found that the transfer to the Supreme Court of New South Wales was in the interests of justice, taking into account the location of the alleged defamation and the procedural advantages available in the Supreme Court. The court emphasised that the transfer aimed to ensure the fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The court ordered the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and granted each party leave to file and serve any written submissions regarding costs within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

2. Each party have leave to file and serve any written submissions they wish to make as to costs within 14 days.

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.