Jacobs v Levitt

The case of Jacobs v Levitt arose in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, involving a claim of defamation. The plaintiff, Jacobs, sought damages from the defendant, Levitt, for defamatory statements made in a publication. The core dispute was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an extension of the limitation period for commencing proceedings, given that he became aware of the publication only after the standard limitation period had expired.

The legal issue before the court was whether to grant an extension of time for the plaintiff to commence proceedings under section 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). This section allows for an extension if the plaintiff was unaware of the cause of action due to circumstances beyond their control and it is just to grant the extension. The court had to consider the plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the publication and whether this was a sufficient ground for the extension, as well as the defendant's stance on the application.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed unaware of the publication until after the limitation period had expired, and this unawareness was due to circumstances beyond his control. The court also considered the defendant's neutrality on the application, as Levitt neither consented to nor opposed the orders sought by the plaintiff. Given these factors, the court concluded that it was just to grant the extension. Accordingly, the court ordered an extension of time for the commencement of the proceedings, with costs to be paid as in the cause, and set deadlines for the filing of a defence and any subsequent reply.

The final orders included an extension of the time limit for Jacobs to commence the defamation proceedings to 2 August 2016, with costs to be borne as in the cause. The defendant was required to file any defence within 28 days, with a reply to be filed 14 days thereafter. The matter was stood over to 10 November 2016 for any further applications concerning the extension of time for filing the defence, and Somerset Ryckmans were directed to notify the defendant of these orders.