Benhayon v Rockett (No 4) - [2018] NSWSC 1312

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Benhayon v Rockett (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1312
Hearing dates: 10, 17 August 2018
Decision date: 27 August 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Plaintiff’s application to dispense with jury refused; subpoenas addressed to Riley Martin, Heath Gibney, Matthew Sutherland and Stephen Clark set aside; application by Universal College to produce redacted documents refused

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – mode of trial – defendant electing for trial by jury – plaintiff seeking to dispense with jury on grounds of complexity and multiplicity of issues and volume of material to be considered – importance of role of juries in actions for defamation
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 62(3)
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 21
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 21
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 31.23, Schedule 7
Cases Cited: Benhayon v Rockett (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 808
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Fierravanti-Wells (2011) 81 NSWLR 315; [2011] NSWCA 246
Combined Excavations and Supplies v Bowis [2000] NSWCA 298
Lowery v Insurance Australia Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 320; [2015] NSWCA 303
Ra v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2009) 182 FCR 148; [2009] FCA 1308
Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 177
Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 222
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Serge Isaac Benhayon (plaintiff)
Esther Mary Rockett (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Smark SC with N Olson (plaintiff)
L Goodchild and S O’Connell (defendant)
Solicitors:
Universal Law Cameron Bell & Associates (plaintiff)
O’Brien Solicitors Pty Ltd (defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/329298
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an action for defamation which is listed for hearing commencing on 3 September 2018 with an estimate of three weeks. The defendant has made an election pursuant to s 21(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) to have the action tried by jury. The plaintiff sought an order dispensing with a jury. On 17 August 2018 I refused the plaintiff’s application, reserving my reasons. This judgment records those reasons and also determines two further issues heard that day regarding subpoenas issued by the parties.
The issues in the proceedings are described in one of my earlier judgments in terms reproduced here. The plaintiff, Serge Benhayon, is a self-styled “complementary medicine healing practitioner” who propounds a "hands-on complementary healing technique” called Esoteric Healing. He teaches what he describes as “religious and philosophical principles and a way of living known as ‘Universal Medicine’ and ‘The Way of The Livingness’”, carrying on business under the name "Universal Medicine".
The defendant, Esther Rockett, attended several healing sessions and other Universal Medicine events in 2004 before forming the view that Mr Benhayon was leading a cult. Since 2012, Ms Rockett has devoted her energies to investigating Universal Medicine and publishing her findings on her blog sites, "Universal Medicine Exposed" and "Esther Rockett - Healthcare Activist". By these proceedings, Mr Benhayon sues Ms Rockett for defamation in respect of her blogs.
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Benhayon v Rockett (No 4) 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: [2018] NSWSC 1312
Decision Date: 27 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Benhayon v Rockett (No 4) involved a defamation dispute between the plaintiff, Benhayon, and the defendant, Rockett. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Benhayon sought to hold Rockett accountable for defamatory statements made about him. The legal issues that the court had to resolve centred on the mode of trial for the defamation claim. Rockett had elected for the case to be tried by a jury, while Benhayon argued that the complexity and multiplicity of issues, along with the volume of material to be considered, warranted dispensing with the jury.

The court had to carefully consider the balance between the plaintiff's right to a jury trial and the potential difficulties that might arise in managing such a trial in a complex defamation case. The court acknowledged the fundamental role that juries play in defamation actions, which is to provide an impartial assessment of the facts and the credibility of witnesses. However, the court also recognised the challenges that might arise when dealing with a large volume of material and intricate issues in a defamation trial. Ultimately, the court determined that the importance of the jury's role in defamation cases outweighed the potential difficulties in managing the trial, and thus, upheld the defendant's election for a jury trial.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the significance of juries in defamation actions, as they provide an independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the facts of the case. The court also acknowledged the difficulties that might arise in managing a complex defamation trial but found that these challenges did not outweigh the importance of the jury's role. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant's election for a jury trial. No specific orders were made in the decision, as the matter proceeded to trial by jury.

Orders