FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2022] FCA 509
File number: NSD 129 of 2022 Judgment of: WIGNEY J Date of judgment: 26 April 2022 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend defence – where respondents failed to file defence within 28 days per r 16.32 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where pleadings in defamation case concerning a custody dispute between a man, a woman and a cavoodle were alleged to be defective or deficient and liable to be struck out per r 16.21(1) of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – a tight leash Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M(1)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 91
Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) rr 16.21(1), 16.32
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 26
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing (2019) 271 FCR 632; [2019] FCAFC 125
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Hodgkinson [2005] NSWCA 190
Barilaro v Shanks-Markovina (No 2) [2021] FCA 950
Burstein v Times Newspapers [2001] 1 WLR 579
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock (2007) 70 NSWLR 484; [2007] NSWCA 364
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Number of paragraphs: 50 Date of hearing: 26 April 2022 Counsel for the Applicant Ms S Chrysanthou SC with Mr N Olson Solicitor for the Applicant Company Giles Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents Mr D Sibtain with Ms C Roberts Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents Bird & Bird ORDERS
NSD 129 of 2022 BETWEEN: GINA EDWARDS
Applicant
AND: NINE NETWORK AUSTALIA PTY LIMITED
First Respondent
TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LIMITED
Second Respondent
STEVE MARSHALL
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 APRIL 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondents have leave to file and serve a defence in the form attached to the respondents’ submissions dated and filed 14 April 2022, subject to it omitting paragraphs 20.1(c), 20.4 and 21.4 of the proposed defence and paragraphs 28 and 29 of the annexure to the proposed defence.
2.The defence filed in accordance with order 1 be filed and served on or before 27 April 2022.
3.The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and associated with the interlocutory application dated 5 April 2022 and the amended interlocutory application dated 14 April 2022.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)WIGNEY J:
A Current Affair is a television program which, as its name would tend to suggest, occasionally airs stories concerning current affairs. On 24 May 2021 and 1 June 2021, the program aired hard-hitting stories about a complicated triangular custody dispute involving a man, a woman and a dog.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] FCA 509
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondents were entitled to leave to amend their defence, given their failure to file a defence within the required timeframe, and what conditions should be imposed on the amended defence. The court had to balance the need for efficient litigation processes with the respondents' right to present a defence. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the specific requirements for the amended defence to ensure it addressed the deficiencies identified by the applicant.
The court granted the respondents leave to file an amended defence, but imposed specific conditions to mitigate the delay. The court required the omission of certain paragraphs from the proposed defence and annexure, ensuring the amended defence would be concise and focused on the substantive issues. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines to maintain the efficiency of the judicial process. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs associated with the interlocutory applications, reflecting the consequences of failing to comply with procedural rules.
The final orders of the court mandated that the respondents file and serve an amended defence by a specified date, omitting certain paragraphs, and pay the applicant's costs for the interlocutory applications. The court's decision underscores the importance of timely compliance with procedural rules in litigation and the need for concise and focused pleadings to ensure the efficient resolution of disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondents have leave to file and serve a defence in the form attached to the respondents’ submissions dated and filed 14 April 2022, subject to it omitting paragraphs 20.1(c), 20.4 and 21.4 of the proposed defence and paragraphs 28 and 29 of the annexure to the proposed defence.
2. The defence filed in accordance with order 1 be filed and served on or before 27 April 2022.
3. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and associated with the interlocutory application dated 5 April 2022 and the amended interlocutory application dated 14 April 2022.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.