Bidstrup v Cullen

In the case of Bidstrup v Cullen, the plaintiff, Mr Bidstrup, sought to sue the defendants, Mr Cullen and Mr Lance, for defamation over statements allegedly made by them on or around 5 August 2009. The alleged defamatory statements included accusations that Mr Bidstrup was not properly credentialed for surgery, that he caused the death of Mrs Allan during surgery, and that he had made the decision to take Mrs Allan off bypass. The defendants contested the application for an extension of time to serve the statement of claim, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient grounds for the delay. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in issuing proceedings and whether it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced his action within the one-year period from the date of publication.

The court rejected the argument that the issues should be deferred until trial and held that the plaintiff had the onus to provide sufficient explanation for the delay in proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of precise detail in particularising a defamation claim and noted that the plaintiff had to rely on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used for the proof of the defamation alleged. The court also considered the Coroner's inquest findings, which were contrary to the alleged defamatory statements, and held that without these findings it was imprudent for Mr Bidstrup to take action. The court held that the plaintiff had not passed the threshold test as to whether it was not reasonable to issue proceedings within one year, but that the surrounding circumstances, including the Coroner's findings, should be taken into account in determining whether the plaintiff's application should succeed. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in issuing proceedings and that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced his action within the one-year period from the date of publication.

The court ordered that the defendants' application to set aside the order for an extension of service be dismissed. The court also held that the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to serve the statement of claim should succeed, and that the defendants were not entitled to any costs for the application. The court held that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in issuing proceedings and that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced his action within the one-year period from the date of publication. The court further held that the surrounding circumstances, including the Coroner's findings, should be taken into account in determining whether the plaintiff's application should succeed. The court held that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in issuing proceedings and that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced his action within the one-year period from the date of publication.