Greinert v Brooker

The case of Greinert v Brooker involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against two individuals who provided information to a journalist. The plaintiff alleged that the information was republished on national television, causing harm to his reputation. The defendants applied for leave to file a cross-claim against the publisher of the television broadcast, seeking contribution under section 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW). The application was made late, and the court was required to consider whether it was fairly arguable that the publisher was a concurrent tortfeasor liable in respect of the same damage. The court also had to consider the discretionary factors relevant to granting leave to file a cross-claim late.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the publisher of the television broadcast was a concurrent tortfeasor and whether the application for leave to file the cross-claim was made within a reasonable time. The court considered the principles outlined in Bracks v Smyth-Kirk, which set out the requirements for a party to be considered a concurrent tortfeasor in a defamation case. The court also considered the discretionary factors relevant to granting leave to file a cross-claim late, such as the explanation for the delay, the likelihood of success on the cross-claim, and the potential prejudice to other parties.

The court found that it was fairly arguable that the publisher was a concurrent tortfeasor and that the application for leave to file the cross-claim was made within a reasonable time. The court noted that the publisher had control over the content of the broadcast and had the ability to prevent the republication of the defamatory material. The court also found that the explanation for the delay in filing the cross-claim was reasonable, and that there was a likelihood of success on the cross-claim. The court granted leave to file the cross-claim, allowing the defendants to seek contribution from the publisher of the television broadcast.

The court ordered that the defendants be granted leave to file a cross-claim against the publisher of the television broadcast, seeking contribution under section 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW). The court noted that the publisher was a concurrent tortfeasor and that the application for leave to file the cross-claim was made within a reasonable time. The court also noted that there was a likelihood of success on the cross-claim and that the explanation for the delay in filing the cross-claim was reasonable. The court ordered that the defendants file the cross-claim within 28 days of the judgment.