Bottrill v Graham (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWDC 221

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bottrill v Graham & Anor (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 221
Hearing dates: 22, 29 May, 5 June and 12 June 2025
Date of orders: 20 June 2025
Decision date: 20 June 2025
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

1. The second defendant’s Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge for the hearing referred to in order 3 below.

2. Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 28.2 and s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), a finding that the plaintiff has established serious harm and that the plaintiff’s action for defamation should proceed to trial.

3. These proceedings listed for trial on all issues as a four day plus hearing to commence on Monday 2, 9 or 16 February or Monday 16 or 23 March 2026, with the parties to determine the most convenient of those dates. If the parties are unable to agree upon a suitable commencement date, the Court will allocate one.

4. The defendants are to nominate categories of documents for discovery within 14 days and all parties are to file and serve verified Lists of Documents 14 days thereafter.

5. Expert reports (if any) to be served 28 days after the plaintiff’s List of Documents is filed and served.

6. These proceedings are listed for directions in the Defamation List on 4 September 2025.

7. All applications for interlocutory relief (including timetable defaults) must be brought by Notice of Motion in the Defamation List with three (3) clear days’ notice or, if a Trial Judge is appointed by the Court, to that Trial Judge.

Catchwords:

DEFAMATION – three lengthy social media podcasts and X posts over a 10-day period – imputations that the plaintiff engaged in criminal activity including paedophilia and abuse of children, was the leader of an international criminal and paedophile cult and had perjured himself in legal proceedings – application by second defendant for preliminary rulings on serious harm – evidence of thousands of listeners and readers – matters remained on the social media site for an extended period – evidence of grapevine effect in the form of publications on other podcast and social media sites – whether serious harm findings should be the subject of a ruling now, at a later interlocutory stage, or at the trial – parties with limited financial means – desirability of early trial – serious harm findings made in the context of an early trial hearing date being set

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – impact on case management of second defendant’s submissions referring to non-existent and/or misstated judgments and legal principles, in breach of District Court General Practice Note 2 Generative AI Practice Note

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 122A;

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 32

Defamation Act2005 (NSW), s 10A

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 10A

Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 10A

Defamation Act 2005 (Tas), s 10A

Defamation Act 2005 (Vic),…

Continue reading Bottrill v Graham (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bottrill v Graham (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 221
Case
[2025] NSWDC 221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bottrill v Graham (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Bottrill, suing two defendants for defamation. The defendants published several podcasts and social media posts over a 10-day period that contained defamatory imputations about the plaintiff, including claims of criminal activity, leading an international paedophile cult, and perjury in legal proceedings. The defendants argued for a summary dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, while the plaintiff sought a ruling on the issue of serious harm. The court had to determine whether to make a ruling on serious harm at the preliminary stage, at a later interlocutory stage, or at the trial, while considering the impact of the defendants' submissions on the case management.

The court examined the gravity of the defamatory imputations, the widespread dissemination of the content, and the evidence of the "grapevine effect" where the defamatory content was republished on other platforms. The court also considered the financial constraints of the parties and the desirability of an early trial. The court found that the plaintiff had established the requisite serious harm for the defamation claim to proceed to trial. The court also noted that the second defendant's submissions contained references to non-existent and misstated judgments and legal principles, which breached the District Court General Practice Note 2 Generative AI Practice Note.

The court dismissed the second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, with costs reserved to be determined at the trial. The court made a finding that the plaintiff had established serious harm and that the defamation action should proceed to trial. The court set a trial date for a four-day hearing, to be determined by the parties or allocated by the court. The court also set a timetable for the discovery of documents and the service of expert reports, if any. The court listed the proceedings for directions in the Defamation List and required all applications for interlocutory relief to be brought by Notice of Motion in the Defamation List or to the Trial Judge, if appointed, with three clear days' notice.

The court's final orders included dismissing the second defendant's Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, with costs reserved to be determined at the trial. The court found that the plaintiff had established serious harm and that the defamation action should proceed to trial. The court set a trial date for a four-day hearing, to be determined by the parties or allocated by the court. The court also set a timetable for the discovery of documents and the service of expert reports, if any. The court listed the proceedings for directions in the Defamation List and required all applications for interlocutory relief to be brought by Notice of Motion in the Defamation List or to the Trial Judge, if appointed, with three clear days' notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second defendant’s Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge for the hearing referred to in order 3 below.

2. Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 28.2 and s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), a finding that the plaintiff has established serious harm and that the plaintiff’s action for defamation should proceed to trial.

3. These proceedings listed for trial on all issues as a four day plus hearing to commence on Monday 2, 9 or 16 February or Monday 16 or 23 March 2026, with the parties to determine the most convenient of those dates. If the parties are unable to agree upon a suitable commencement date, the Court will allocate one.

4. The defendants are to nominate categories of documents for discovery within 14 days and all parties are to file and serve verified Lists of Documents 14 days thereafter.

5. Expert reports (if any) to be served 28 days after the plaintiff’s List of Documents is filed and served.

6. These proceedings are listed for directions in the Defamation List on 4 September 2025.

7. All applications for interlocutory relief (including timetable defaults) must be brought by Notice of Motion in the Defamation List with three (3) clear days’ notice or, if a Trial Judge is appointed by the Court, to that Trial Judge.

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.