Brooks v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Brooks v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd

In this case, the plaintiffs, Brooks, sought to consolidate defamation proceedings against two media companies, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd, for separate but related imputations contained in their publications. The court had to decide whether the defamation proceedings should be heard together, despite the differently drafted imputations, due to the common questions of fact and issues involved. The court considered the delay in applying for consolidation, the fact that each proceeding was already listed for hearing on different dates, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs if they lost their junior counsel who had been long briefed in the matter. The court also considered the prejudice to the defendants in the related proceedings if they lost their right to an independent approach.

The court held that consolidation of the proceedings was appropriate, given the common questions of fact and issues involved. The court found that the delay in applying for consolidation did not necessarily preclude the application, and the fact that each proceeding was already listed for hearing on different dates did not necessarily mean that consolidation was not possible. The court also found that the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs in losing their junior counsel was outweighed by the benefits of consolidating the proceedings, and that the defendants' right to an independent approach was not an absolute right that could not be overridden in the interests of justice.

The court ordered that the defamation proceedings be consolidated and heard together, with the parties to file and exchange further evidence and witness statements within a specified timeframe. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the application for consolidation and the conduct of the consolidated proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs' application for consolidation was successful, and the defendants' opposition was dismissed. The court ordered that the proceedings be consolidated and heard together, and made orders regarding the conduct of the consolidated proceedings and the costs of the application.