Cahill v Snell and 3 Ors

[1999] NSWSC 1063

CITATION:

Cahill v Snell & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 1063

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

20311 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S):

22 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:

22 October 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN PHILLIP CAHILL
(Plaintiff)

v

ED SNELL
(First Defendant)

BRIAN HENDERSON
(Second Defendant)

JIM REID
(Third Defendant)

MICHAEL BROWN
(Fourth Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :

J Gibson
(Plaintiff)

R McHugh
(Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS:

Denes Ebner
(Plaintiff)

Gilbert & Tobin
(First & Third Defendants)

Geoffrey Edwards & Co.
(Second Defendant)

Blake Dawson Waldron
(Fourth Defendant)

CATCHWORDS:

Transfer to District Court

DECISION:

See paragraph 5

DLJ: 1
(Ex Tempore - Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20311 of 1999

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER 1999

JOHN PHILLIP CAHILL
(Plaintiff)

v

ED SNELL
(First Defendant)

BRIAN HENDERSON
(Second Defendant)

JIM REID
(Third Defendant)

MICHAEL BROWN
(Fourth Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Transfer to the District Court)

1    HIS HONOUR: These proceedings are of a nature not uncommon in terms of the initiation of an action which finds itself in the Defamation List of the Supreme Court. It arises from what shortly can be described as a trade union election. It is indeed, to my present knowledge, not the only matter of such a kind in this morning's list. 2    That such a political process as a trade union election would give rise to vigorous campaigning and documents reflecting that vigour is to be expected. That there may be a perception that the ordinary rigours of industrial politics have been exceeded by a particular publication in the course of them also might be understood. 3    The constituency within the area of trade union elections is by its nature limited. It is not to be taken however that the boundaries of the constituency necessarily restricts the boundaries of publication. 4    Defamation proceedings arising from such an event need not be remarkable in terms of defences that may be available. The defence that may be pleaded may as a matter of principle involve interests and important legal considerations within the factual context that will be established at a hearing. With respect to this particular action I am not persuaded that anything precludes me from making the order sought, the question of the availability of the Lange defence being amenable to resolution in the District Court as much as it is here. 5    I direct that this matter be transferred to the District Court of New South Wales for hearing in Sydney.

***********

Last Modified: 10/26/1999