Jones v Jackson - [2023] NSWDC 76

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Jackson [2023] NSWDC 76
Hearing dates: 30 March 2023
Date of orders: 30 March 2023
Decision date: 30 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
(1) On the application of both parties, following the issue being raised by Gibson DCJ pursuant to ss 10A(4) and 10A(5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the separate hearing of serious harm is adjourned part-heard, by reason of the fresh evidence of the plaintiff and information provided to the parties’ counsel.
(2) Stand the matter over to Thursday 25 May 2023, for directions only, with costs reserved.

Catchwords:
TORT – defamation – parties consent to a separate hearing of serious harm – evidence at the commencement of the hearing about imminent publication of similar imputations by a third party broadcaster – whether the issue of serious harm is “not ripe” for a final decision – serious harm hearing adjourned

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A(4), s 10A(5)
Defamation Act 2013 (UK) c 26, s 1
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2

Cases Cited:
Ames v Spamhouse Project Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 3409
GRC Project Pty Ltd trading as GRC Property Management v Lai [2023] NSWDC 63
High Quality Jewellers Pty Ltd (ACN 119 428 394) & Ors v Ramaihi (Ruling) [2022] VCC 1924
Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd (No 4) [2023] FCA 114
Wilks v Qu (Ruling 2) [2022] VCC 1503

Texts Cited:
Practice Note DC (Civil) No. 1

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Stuart Jones (plaintiff)
Letitia Jackson (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Munro (plaintiff)
Ms M Harris (defendant)
Solicitors:
O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors (plaintiff)
Williamson Isabella Lawyers (defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00366567
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The applications before the court

The plaintiff commenced proceedings for defamation, by statement of claim filed on 5 December 2022, for two Facebook publications made by the defendant:

A post on the NSW Institute of Sport Facebook page, made on or around 25 November 2021; and

A post on the Newcastle Live Facebook page, made on 2 February 2022.

The text of both these publications and the imputations pleaded have been included in the schedule of publications at the end of this judgment (although the plaintiff now restricts his claim to the first matter complained of, I have included the text of the second matter complained of, on the basis that no formal ruling on this issue has yet been sought or made).
On the first return date, the defendant made the following applications:

Pursuant to s 10A(5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (“the Act”), the serious harm element in these defamation proceedings to be determined before the trial for the proceedings commences; and

Pursuant to s 10A of the Act and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) r 28.2, the proceedings be dismissed due to the plaintiff failing to establish serious harm.

The plaintiff consented to the early determination…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jones v Jackson

Details

AGLC: Jones v Jackson [2023] NSWDC 76
Case: [2023] NSWDC 76
Decision Date: 30 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones v Jackson involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The parties consented to a separate hearing of the issue of serious harm, which is a requirement for a defamation action to proceed. The matter came before the court, and at the commencement of the hearing, evidence was presented about an imminent publication of similar imputations by a third party broadcaster. The court was required to decide whether the issue of serious harm was “not ripe” for a final decision due to this fresh evidence.

The court considered the evidence presented and the implications it had on the issue of serious harm. The court noted that the evidence of the imminent publication of similar imputations by a third party broadcaster was relevant to the issue of serious harm, as it could impact the extent of harm caused by the defendant’s alleged defamatory statement. The court found that the issue of serious harm was not ripe for a final decision, given the fresh evidence presented, and therefore adjourned the separate hearing part-heard.

The court ordered that the matter be stood over for directions only, with costs reserved. The court found that it was necessary to allow the parties to address the fresh evidence and its impact on the issue of serious harm before proceeding with the separate hearing. The court did not make a final decision on the issue of serious harm and instead adjourned the hearing to allow for further evidence and argument.

The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant evidence when deciding on the issue of serious harm in a defamation claim. The court recognised that the evidence of the imminent publication of similar imputations by a third party broadcaster was relevant to the issue of serious harm and could impact the extent of harm caused by the defendant’s alleged defamatory statement. The court’s decision to adjourn the hearing part-heard and stand the matter over for directions only demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered before making a final decision on the issue of serious harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) On the application of both parties, following the issue being raised by Gibson DCJ pursuant to ss 10A(4) and 10A(5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the separate hearing of serious harm is adjourned part-heard, by reason of the fresh evidence of the plaintiff and information provided to the parties’ counsel.

(2) Stand the matter over to Thursday 25 May 2023, for directions only, with costs reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jones v Jackson [2023] NSWDC 76
Hearing dates:	30 March 2023
Date of orders:	30 March 2023
Decision date:	30 March 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) On the application of both parties, following the issue being raised by Gibson DCJ pursuant to ss 10A(4) and 10A(5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the separate hearing of serious harm is adjourned part-heard, by reason of the fresh evidence of the plaintiff and information provided to the parties’ counsel. (2) Stand the matter over to Thursday 25 May 2023, for directions only, with costs reserved.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – parties consent to a separate hearing of serious harm – evidence at the commencement of the hearing about imminent publication of similar imputations by a third party broadcaster – whether the issue of serious harm is “not ripe” for a final decision – serious harm hearing adjourned
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A(4), s 10A(5) Defamation Act 2013 (UK) c 26, s 1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2
Cases Cited:	Ames v Spamhouse Project Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 3409 GRC Project Pty Ltd trading as GRC Property Management v Lai [2023] NSWDC 63 High Quality Jewellers Pty Ltd (ACN 119 428 394) & Ors v Ramaihi (Ruling) [2022] VCC 1924 Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd (No 4) [2023] FCA 114 Wilks v Qu (Ruling 2) [2022] VCC 1503
Texts Cited:	Practice Note DC (Civil) No. 1
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Stuart Jones (plaintiff) Letitia Jackson (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Munro (plaintiff) Ms M Harris (defendant) Solicitors: O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors (plaintiff) Williamson Isabella Lawyers (defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00366567
Publication restriction:	Nil