Gluszak v Yeap [No 2]

Case [2021] WASC 283 (S)


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: GLUSZAK -v- YEAP [No 2] [2021] WASC 283

CORAM:   LE MIERE J

HEARD:   8 JULY 2021

DELIVERED          :   19 AUGUST 2021

PUBLISHED           :   19 AUGUST 2021

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1492 of 2020

BETWEEN:   EDWARD ANTONY GLUSZAK

Plaintiff

AND

TRALVEX REX YEAP

Defendant


Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleadings - Strike out - Defence and counterclaim

Defamation - Limitation Act 2005 (WA) - Extension of time - Whether not reasonable in the circumstances to have commenced action within one year of publication

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic)

Result:

Extension of time granted
Defence and counterclaim struck out
Leave to replead granted

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett
Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co
Defendant : In person

Cases referred to in decision:

Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 5; (2004) 218 CLR 366

Bauer Media Pty Ltd v Wilson (No 2) (2018) 56 VR 674

Gluszak v Yeap [2020] WASC 360

Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co Inc (No 4) [2004] VSC 138; (2004) 9 VR 369

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

O'Shaughnessy v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1970] HCA 52; (1970) 125 CLR 166

Phelps v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 130

Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448

Scott v Samson (1882) 8 QBD 491

Smith's Newspapers Ltd v Becker [1932] HCA 39; (1932) 47 CLR 279

LE MIERE J:

Summary

  1. The plaintiff is a research physicist and the person in control of an account with the username 'Blackbriar' on the messaging application 'Telegram'.  The defendant is a computer studies academic and maintains and controls a number of websites.

  2. The plaintiff claims he has been defamed by 10 publications by the defendant which are defamatory of him.  The defendant has filed a defence and counterclaim.  In his counterclaim the defendant claims he has been defamed by several of the plaintiff's publications and also claims damages and other relief for injurious falsehood.

  3. Some of the publications in respect of which the defendant counterclaims are barred by s 15 of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The defendant applies for an extension of time within which to commence proceedings by counterclaim against the plaintiff. The plaintiff applies for an order that the defendant's defence and counterclaim be struck out.

  4. For the reasons which follow, the defendant will have leave to commence claims relating to the publication of the alleged defamatory matters notwithstanding that one year has elapsed since their publication.  The defendant's defence and counterclaim will be struck out with leave to replead.

Extension of time to commence counterclaim

  1. The defendant filed his defence and counterclaim on 17 January 2021.  He claims relief in respect of, amongst others, the following…

Continue reading Gluszak v Yeap [No 2]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gluszak v Yeap [No 2] [2021] WASC 283 (S)
Case
[2021] WASC 283 (S)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding are Edward Antony Gluszak and Trave Rex Yeap. The dispute concerns the allegedly defamatory publications made by both parties. The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard the case and delivered its decision on 19 August 2021. The defendant filed a defence and counterclaim to which the plaintiff objected. The plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant's defence and counterclaim be struck out on numerous grounds. The defendant applied for an extension of time within which to commence proceedings by counterclaim against the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant will have leave to commence claims relating to the publication of the alleged defamatory matters notwithstanding that one year has elapsed since their publication. The defendant's defence and counterclaim will be struck out with leave to replead. The defendant will pay the plaintiff's costs of the strike out application fixed in the amount of $30,000 and payable within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.