Bechara v Bonacorso

Case [2009] NSWDC 131
CITATION: Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131
HEARING DATE(S): 19 March, 12 June 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
12 June 2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12 June 2009
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ
DECISION: 1. Grant leave to the plaintiff to file the further affidavit of Mr Kalantzis by 4:00pm Friday 12 June 2009.
2. Judgment to be emailed to the parties following receipt of Mr Kalantzis’ affidavit on Friday 12 June 2009.
3. Defendant’s Notice of Motion dismissed.
4. Extend the limitation period from 17 May to 27 October 2008 so that the plaintiff may bring a claim in defamation against the defendant for the first matter complained of.
5. Defendant pay plaintiff’s costs.
6. Parties have leave to file Short Minutes of Order for a Timetable for the further conduct of these proceedings.
CATCHWORDS: Abuse of process – plaintiff commences proceedings for defamation arising out of COPS reports obtained under subpoena in unrelated proceedings in Local Court – plaintiff seeks leave from Local Court and police to do so – whether defendant can maintain objection as to abuse of process – whether COPS report a confidential or public document – whether stay should be refused because proceedings unconnected – whether leave should be granted to commence proceedings out of time
LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 56A
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 28(4)(e)
CASES CITED: Ainsworth v Burden (2003) 56 NSWLR 620
Ainsworth v Burden [1999] NSWSC 793
Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company (Canberra) Ltd (1995) 13 ACLC 1611
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.COM Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 258
Capital Television Group Ltd v Northern Rivers Television Pty Ltd (Bainton J, 4 September 1995)
Crest Homes plc v Marks [1987] AC 829; [1987] 2 All ER 1074; [1987] 3 WLR 293
Eltran Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp (1990) 25 FCR 322; 98 ALR 141
Halcon International Inc v Shell Transport & Trading Co Ltd [1979] RPC 459
Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
Holpitt Pty Ltd v Varimu Pty Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 576; (1991) 103 ALR 684
Lassanah v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWDC 73
Mann v Medical Defence Union Ltd [1997] FCA 45
Miller v R L Polk & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd (New South Wales Court of Appeal, 29 July 1985, unreported).
Miller v R L Polk & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Hunt J, 4 July 1985, unreported)
Moses v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWDC 74
Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881
Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (2004) 209 ALR 703; [2004] FCA 1014
Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35
PARTIES: Plaintiff: Antoine Bechara
Defendant: Paul Bonacorso
FILE NUMBER(S): 5084 of 2008
COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Mr S M Littlemore QC / Ms S Chrysanthou
Defendant: Mr M Lynch
SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Kalantzis Lawyers
Defendant: Puleo Lawyers

Judgment

1. The plaintiff brings an application pursuant to s 56A Limitation…

Continue reading Bechara v Bonacorso

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131
Case
[2009] NSWDC 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bechara v Bonacorso, the plaintiff sought leave to commence defamation proceedings against the defendant, arising from reports obtained under subpoena in unrelated proceedings in the Local Court. The plaintiff required permission from both the Local Court and the police to initiate these proceedings. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant could maintain an objection to the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process, the confidentiality of the COPS reports, and whether the proceedings should be stayed due to their disconnection from the original matter. Additionally, the court had to determine whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to file the proceedings out of time.

The court deliberated on the nature of the COPS reports, considering whether they were confidential or public documents, which would influence the plaintiff's right to use them as the basis for defamation claims. Furthermore, the court examined the principle of abuse of process and whether the defendant's objection was valid given the context of the proceedings. The court also assessed the unconnectedness of the proceedings and the implications for the defendant's ability to object to the stay. Ultimately, the court ruled that the plaintiff could proceed with the defamation claim, extending the limitation period to allow for the filing of the claim within the specified timeframe.

The court granted leave to the plaintiff to file a further affidavit by a specified time and directed that judgment be emailed to the parties once the affidavit was received. The defendant's Notice of Motion was dismissed, and the limitation period was extended to permit the plaintiff to bring a claim in defamation. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. The parties were also granted leave to file Short Minutes of Order for a Timetable for the further conduct of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to the plaintiff to file the further affidavit of Mr Kalantzis by 4:00pm Friday 12 June 2009. 2. Judgment to be emailed to the parties following receipt of Mr Kalantzis' affidavit on Friday 12 June 2009. 3. Defendant's Notice of Motion dismissed. 4. Extend the limitation period from 17 May to 27 October 2008 so that the plaintiff may bring a claim in defamation against the defendant for the first matter complained of. 5. Defendant pay plaintiff's costs. 6. Parties have leave to file Short Minutes of Order for a Timetable for the further conduct of these proceedings.

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.