Hooper v Phipps (No 2)

In the case of Hooper v Phipps (No 2), the plaintiff sought to proceed with a defamation trial before a jury. The defendants applied for the trial to proceed before a judge alone under section 21(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The core issue before the court was whether the medical evidence provided by the plaintiff's cardiologist was sufficient to support the plaintiff's fitness to give evidence and be cross-examined in a jury trial, and whether there were other reasons that the court should exercise its discretion to order the trial to proceed before a judge alone.

The court considered the evidence provided by the plaintiff's cardiologist, who confirmed that the plaintiff was fit to give evidence and be cross-examined in a jury trial. The court also examined whether there were any other grounds to exercise the discretionary power under section 21(1) of the Act. The court concluded that the medical evidence was satisfactory and there were no other reasons to dispense with the jury. The court noted the importance of the plaintiff's right to a trial by jury and the significant public interest in defamation cases being heard by a jury.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application by the defendants to dispense with the jury, and ordered that the defendants pay the costs of the application. This decision underscores the court's commitment to the principle that the right to a trial by jury is a fundamental aspect of the administration of justice, and that such a right should not be lightly set aside.