Harris v 718932 Pty Ltd

In the case of Harris v 718932 Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Harris, sought damages for defamation against multiple defendants, including different printers and distributors, for the republication of allegedly defamatory material. The previous litigation involved a defamation claim against another defendant for the initial publication of the defamatory material, where Harris was successful. The current dispute involves the plaintiff seeking to recover damages for the second and third publications of the same defamatory material. The defendants argued for the dismissal of the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process and Anshun estoppel, asserting that the plaintiff had re-litigated the same cause of action by not adding the new defendants in the previous action, leading to a potential for inconsistent findings.

The court examined whether the plaintiff's claims were an abuse of process and whether the previous action should have been amended to include the additional defendants. It was noted that the claims in the current proceedings were inconsistent with those in the previous action, raising the prospect of inconsistent findings. The court also considered whether a defence of estoppel should be pleaded and tried separately rather than dismissed as an abuse of process. Additionally, the court addressed the procedural issue of amending the imputations and the date of operation of such amendments under Pt20 r4(5) of the Supreme Court Rules.

The court determined that the plaintiff's claims for the subsequent publications amounted to an abuse of process and were precluded by Anshun estoppel. It was held that the plaintiff should have amended the previous action to include the additional defendants and the claims based on the reprints. The court found that the prospect of inconsistent findings warranted the dismissal of the current proceedings. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' application to strike out the proceedings. The court also ruled that the defence of estoppel should be pleaded and tried separately, rather than dismissed as an abuse of process.