Johnston v Holland

The matter of Johnston v Holland was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Johnston, sought to bring a defamation action against the defendant, Holland, and a proposed defendant, relating to comments made on social media. The key dispute centred around whether Johnston's claim was statute-barred and whether an extension of time should be granted under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958.

The court had to decide whether it was not reasonable for Johnston to have commenced the proceedings within the statutory one-year period following the publication of the defamatory comments. This decision hinged on the interpretation and application of sections 5(1AAA) and 23B of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958. The court considered several precedents, including Noonan v MacLennan, Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd, Jamieson v Chiropractic Board of Australia, Wookey v Quigley, and Casley v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The court also needed to determine whether the proposed pleading against Holland and the proposed defendant was sufficient.

In its judgment, the court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the action and the applicability of the limitation period exceptions. It found that the delay was not unreasonable given the specific circumstances, and granted an extension of time. The court also ruled that the proposed pleadings were sufficient to meet the requirements of the court. The plaintiff was thus permitted to proceed with the defamation action.