Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Limited [No 7]

The case involved Jensen, the applicant, and Nationwide News Pty Limited, the respondent, and was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Jensen sought to proceed with a defamation claim against the respondent without a jury. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant could dispense with the right to a jury trial, given the nature of the claim and the potential for prejudice against the respondent if tried by a jury. The court also had to consider the role of a jury in defamation cases and whether separate issues should be tried together or separately.

The court examined the criteria for dispensing with a jury under the Federal Court Rules and the nature of defamation claims. It noted that the right to a jury trial is not absolute and can be set aside if it would lead to a miscarriage of justice or cause substantial injustice to a party. The court also considered the potential for prejudice against the respondent if the case were to be tried by a jury. The court concluded that the case management orders were not aspirational guidelines but binding directions that must be followed. The court found that the applicant's application to dispense with a jury was not in the interests of justice and dismissed the application.

The court also addressed the issue of ordering a trial of separate issues. It found that the case management orders required the parties to proceed with a trial of separate issues, and the applicant's failure to comply with these orders was a breach of the directions. The court noted that the case management orders were binding and must be followed, and the applicant's failure to comply with these orders could result in adverse consequences. The court also found that the respondent had suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the applicant's failure to comply with the case management orders. The court ordered that the matter proceed to a trial of separate issues, with the defamation claim to be tried first.

In summary, the court found that the applicant could not dispense with the right to a jury trial in the defamation claim, and the case would proceed with a trial of separate issues. The court also found that the applicant's failure to comply with the case management orders resulted in substantial prejudice to the respondent, and the matter would proceed as directed. The court emphasised the importance of following case management orders and the potential consequences of failing to do so.