Hayward v Barratt

The plaintiffs, Hayward and others, brought proceedings against the defendant, Barratt, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought damages for defamation, claiming that the defendant had made defamatory statements about them in various publications. The defendant denied the allegations and counterclaimed for malicious prosecution. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' claims could proceed in the form of a single proceeding, or whether a separate trial should be ordered for the oral publication component of the claims.

The court considered whether the imputations made in the publications were so closely connected that they could be tried together. The plaintiffs argued that the oral publication was part of a continuous defamatory campaign and should not be severed from the other claims. The defendant contended that the oral publication was distinct and should be tried separately. The court had to decide whether the trial of the oral publication claims should be severed under rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, or whether it could be tried concurrently with the other claims under rule 11(3) of the Supreme Court Rules Part 67.

The court held that the oral publication claims could not be severed from the other claims because they were part of a single defamatory campaign. The imputations made in the oral publications were closely connected to those in the written publications, and trying them separately would be an exercise of form rather than substance. The court found that the claims could proceed in a single proceeding, as they were not so distinct as to warrant a separate trial. The court's decision was based on the principle that the form of the proceeding should not override the substance of the claims, and that the trial of all claims together would be more efficient and just. The court denied the defendant's application for a separate trial for the oral publication claims.