Gabriella Piscioneri v Malcolmson

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Gabriella Piscioneri v Malcolmson

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 278

Hearing Date:

22 August 2017

DecisionDate:

22 September 2017

Before:

McWilliam AsJ

Decision:

1.     Judgment is entered for the defendant.

2.     The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

3.     Liberty is granted to the parties to apply within 7 days of the making of these orders to vary order 2.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1147 – Limitation Act (1985) s 21B – application for summary judgment – whether limitation period prevents claim from being pursued – summary judgment entered for defendant

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 137

Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 21B
Bar Association of Queensland, 2011 Barristers’ Rules as amended (as at 26 August 2016) rr 53, 54

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1147

Cases Cited:

Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1663

Brisciani v  Piscioneri  [2016] ACTCA 32
Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2012] NSWCA 176; 84 NSWLR 90
Commonwealth of Australia v Mewett [1997] HCA 29; 191 CLR 471
Egan-Green v McLean [2017] ACTSC 48
Gabriella Jean  Piscioneri  v Marek Janusz Michael Reardon[2015] ACTSC 61
Hillebrand v Penrith Council [2000] NSWSC 1058
Piscioneri v Brisciani & Reardon [2017] ACTSC 237
Piscioneri v Reardon [2016] ACTCA 33
Piscioneri v Reardon [2015] ACTSC 61
R v Fisher [2009] VSCA 100; 22 VR 343
Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1971
Riches v Director of Public Prosecutions [1973] 1 WLR 1019

Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Constructions Ltd [1983] QB 398

Parties:

Gabriella Piscioneri (Plaintiff)

Scott David Malcolmson (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented (Plaintiff)

M Walsh SC (Defendant)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Plaintiff)

Mills Oakley (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SC 150 of 2017

McWilliam AsJ:

1. By statement of claim filed 11 May 2017 (Claim), the plaintiff has commenced proceedings in defamation against the defendant.

The Claim in defamation

1. The circumstances giving rise to the Claim find their genesis in previous appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal (also involving a defamation suit), where the plaintiff was the appellant and the defendant was briefed as counsel for the respondent.  Those proceedings ultimately resulted in a judgment delivered on 10 August 2016: Piscioneri v Reardon [2016] ACTCA 33.

1. However, in the course of those proceedings, on 4 April 2016, the defendant sent an email to the Clerk of the Court of Appeal, the contents of which were as follows:

The Appellant has still not served her submissions in this matter upon the Respondent and his advisors despite the directions made by the Chief Justice.

Although she knows I am in the matter, she did not send me the submissions by way of courtesy.  My solicitor has not received anything either.

In any event, despite her non service, could we please be provided with the Appellant’s submissions? I note our submissions in reply need to be filed…