Clarke v Herrick

Case [2020] NSWCA 71


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Clarke v Herrick [2020] NSWCA 71
Hearing dates: 17 April 2020
Decision date: 21 April 2020
Before: Meagher JA; Leeming JA
Decision:

(1) Extend the time for Ms Clarke to file the summons seeking leave to appeal to 11 November 2019.

 

(2) Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal.

 

(3) Dismiss the notice of motion of 10 January 2020.

 (4) Order the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of that summons except for: the costs of Ms Clarke’s notice of motion filed 10 January 2020; and the costs of oral argument on 17 April 2020.
Catchwords: APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – appeal from summary dismissal of amended claim – where original claim alleging republications subject to defences of absolute privilege – where amended claim alleging only original publication time barred – whether summary dismissal on the basis of amended pleading involved error or was procedurally unfair – leave refused
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005, s 27
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127(2)(a)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14B, 56A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.36, 50.12
Cases Cited: Clarke v Fenn [2018] NSWDC 336
Clarke v Herrick [2019] NSWDC 533
Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales (No 3) [2019] NSWDC 532
Clarke v South East Sydney Local Health District [2018] NSWSC 66
Clarke v South East Sydney Local Health District (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 226
The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Sharmain Daisy Clarke (Applicant)

 

Julie Herrick (First Respondent)

  South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant self-represented
D Sibtain (Respondents)

  Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
Hicksons Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2019/314474
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
[2019] NSWDC 533
Date of Decision:
12 September 2019
Before:
Gibson DCJ
File Number(s):
2019/134260

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: By a summons filed 11 November 2019, the applicant, Ms Clarke, seeks leave to appeal from orders made by Gibson DCJ on 12 September 2019 striking out and dismissing her defamation claim on the basis that it was statute barred (Clarke v Herrick [2019] NSWDC 533). Ms Clarke requires leave to appeal from the order summarily dismissing her claim because that order was interlocutory (District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127(2)(a)).

  2. That summons was filed more than 28 days after the orders appealed from were made, and is out of time (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.12). Accordingly, in the summons seeking leave Ms Clarke applies for an extension of time in relation to its filing (see r 50.12(2)). That extension of time should be granted, so that Ms Clarke’s application for leave may be dealt with according to its merits. There is no prejudice to the respondent in the Court proceeding on that basis.

  3. By a notice of motion filed 10…

Continue reading Clarke v Herrick

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Clarke v Herrick [2020] NSWCA 71
Case
[2020] NSWCA 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application for leave to appeal from the summary dismissal of an amended claim. The original claim alleged republications of certain material, to which defences of absolute privilege were raised. However, the amended claim alleged only the original publication, which the respondents argued was time-barred. The applicant contended that the summary dismissal of the amended pleading involved error or was procedurally unfair. The appeal was heard by Meagher and Leeming JJA.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the summary dismissal of the amended claim was erroneous or procedurally unfair, given the applicant's arguments regarding the original publication and the alleged time bar. This required the Court to consider the proper application of the rules governing summary dismissal and the principles of procedural fairness in the context of amended pleadings.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's arguments and the circumstances surrounding the summary dismissal. While granting an extension of time for the applicant to file the summons seeking leave to appeal, the Court ultimately dismissed the summons. This indicated that the Court found no error in the summary dismissal or that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant leave to appeal. The Court also dismissed a subsequent notice of motion filed by the applicant.

The final orders of the Court were to extend the time for Ms Clarke to file the summons seeking leave to appeal to 11 November 2019, and then to dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal. The Court also dismissed Ms Clarke’s notice of motion filed on 10 January 2020 and ordered Ms Clarke to pay the respondents’ costs of the summons, with specific exceptions relating to her notice of motion and oral argument on 17 April 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Extend the time for Ms Clarke to file the summons seeking leave to appeal to 11 November 2019.

(2) Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal.

(3) Dismiss the notice of motion of 10 January 2020.

(4) Order the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of that summons except for: the costs of Ms Clarke’s notice of motion filed 10 January 2020; and the costs of oral argument on 17 April 2020.

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.