Bottrill v Graham (No 3)

The case of Bottrill v Graham (No 3) involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against three defendants, who were the hosts of a podcast series that made serious and damaging allegations against the plaintiff. These allegations included claims that the plaintiff was the world leader of a paedophile murder and blood-drinking ring of criminals. The defendants sought to have the matter decided by a jury rather than by a judge alone. In response, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion to refuse the application for a jury trial, citing practical difficulties, logistical problems, and the need for prolonged examination of documents and podcasts.

The court needed to decide whether the application for a trial by jury should be refused on the grounds that the case involved complex issues requiring a detailed examination of numerous documents and podcasts. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the second defendant's application for a second pro bono lawyer, pursuant to UCPR r 7.36, was justified given the special reasons presented. The court considered the substantial amount of work involved and the fact that a hearing date had already been set, leading to the conclusion that the application for a second pro bono lawyer should be refused.

The court granted the plaintiff's Notice of Motion to refuse the application for a trial by jury, finding that the practical difficulties and logistical problems presented significant obstacles to a fair and efficient trial. The court also ruled that the second defendant had not made out the necessary special reasons to warrant the appointment of a second pro bono lawyer. Consequently, the case would proceed without a jury, and the second defendant would not receive additional legal representation.

The orders of the court included the refusal of the application for a trial by jury and the denial of the second defendant's application for a second pro bono lawyer. The case was set to proceed with a judge alone, addressing the defamation claims made against the plaintiff.