Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 2)

Case [2010] NSWDC 42
CITATION: Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 42
HEARING DATE(S): 12 March 2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
19 March 2010
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ
DECISION: (1) The defendant is to answer the plaintiff’s interrogatories 2(c) and 14(c) in seven days, with verification, by 26 March 2010.
(2) Order 1 is self-executing in nature.
(3) Defendant pay plaintiff’s costs of this application.
CATCHWORDS: TORT - defamation - further and better answers to interrogatories
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 3 and 40
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 22.1 and 22.2
CASES CITED: Adams v Dickeson [1974] VR 77
Atkinson v Fosbroke (1866) LR1QB 628
Bateman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 73
Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131
Coles Myer Ltd v Webster; Coles Myer Ltd v Thompson [2009] NSWCA 299
Cush v Dillon and Boland v Dillon [2009] NSWDC 21
Mallick v McGeown [2009] NSWSC 129
McConville v Credit Union Services Corporation (Australia) Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Levine J, 29 August 1997, unreported)
Photi v Target Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) [2007] NSWDC 265
Ryan v Federal Capital Press (1990) 101 FLR 396
Sanders v Anderson [1968] NZLR 172
Seidler v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 390
Webster v Coles Myer Ltd; Thompson v Coles Myer Ltd [2009] NSWDC 4
Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 508
TEXTS CITED: Gatley on Libel and Slander, 5th ed.
Odgers on Libel and Slander 6th ed.
Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed., 2003)
PARTIES: Plaintiff: Antoine Bechara
Defendant: Paul Bonacorso
FILE NUMBER(S): 5084 of 2008
COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou
Defendant: Mr M Lynch
SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Kalantzis Lawyers
Defendant: Puleo Lawyers

Judgment

[1] These are proceedings for defamation commenced by way of Statement of Claim filed on 27 October 2008 concerning three publications of words spoken by the defendant to police officers between May and June 2007. The imputations conveyed are set out in Bechara v Bonacorso [2009] NSWDC 131. The Defence filed on 14 July 2009 denies publication of each of the matters complained of and relies on defences of common law and statutory qualified privilege, as well as the defence of unlikelihood of harm. A Reply filed on 16 July 2009 pleads malice in defeasance of the qualified privilege defences.

[2] The matter was given a hearing date on Monday 17 May 2010 as a five day non-jury trial. When that order was made on 4 September 2009, an order was made for the parties to exchange verified answers to interrogatories on or before 18 September 2009. Those answers were served five months late, on 19 February 2010. Some interrogatories were not answered on the basis of an obvious typographical error in the question. The defendant has now agreed to answer these, and when the matter came before me on 12 March 2010, I directed the defendant to answer interrogatories 3 to 12 by Monday 15 March 2010 with…

Continue reading Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 42
Case
[2010] NSWDC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 2), the plaintiff, Bechara, pursued legal action against the defendant, Bonacorso, concerning a defamation matter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary focus was the adequacy of the defendant's responses to specific interrogatories. The interrogatories in question sought further and better answers regarding the nature and extent of the alleged defamatory statements and the impact they had on the plaintiff's reputation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had sufficiently answered the interrogatories posed by the plaintiff. Specifically, interrogatories 2(c) and 14(c) were highlighted as requiring more detailed responses. The court needed to assess whether the answers provided by the defendant were adequate and if further elaboration was necessary to ensure a fair and comprehensive understanding of the defamation claims.

The court found that the defendant's answers to interrogatories 2(c) and 14(c) were insufficient. The responses did not provide the level of detail required to properly address the plaintiff's claims. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to provide further and better answers to these interrogatories within a specified timeframe, accompanied by verification. Additionally, the order was self-executing, meaning it required no further action from the court to be enforced. The defendant was also directed to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The defendant is to answer the plaintiff’s interrogatories 2(c) and 14(c) in seven days, with verification, by 26 March 2010.

(2) Order 1 is self-executing in nature.

(3) Defendant pay plaintiff’s costs of this application.

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.