Legal Research
Cases
Jones v Williams (pseudonyms)

Jones v Williams (pseudonyms)

Case [2018] NSWSC 954 22 June 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Williams (pseudonyms) [2018] NSWSC 954
Hearing dates: 15 June 2018
Decision date: 22 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Plaintiff’s application to extend the limitation period in respect of the cause of action pleaded at paragraphs 26 to 38 of the statement of claim refused; plaintiff’s application for leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim served on 7 June 2018 refused; proceedings as against the 4th to 6th defendants dismissed; no order as to costs

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – application to extend limitation period – plaintiff seeking to sue former parents-in-law and former wife for statements allegedly made to police in anticipation of application for Apprehended Domestic Violence Order – where plaintiff first learned of statements well after they were made – whether any discernible publication within the ultimate limitation period allowed under the Act – further delay in commencing proceedings – whether “not reasonable” to have commenced action within one year – consideration of factors relevant to discretion as to choice of date to which limitation period should be extended
Legislation Cited: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 121
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14B, 56A
Cases Cited: Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 304
Carey v ABC [2010] NSWSC 709
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Mr Jones (plaintiff)
Mr A Williams (fourth defendant)
Mrs B Williams (fifth defendant)
Ms C Williams (sixth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff self-represented
C Amato, A Spies (fourth to sixth defendants)
Solicitors:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/77830
Publication restriction: These proceedings are concerned with the events of proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. It is an offence contrary to s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to publish information that identifies persons in connection with such proceedings. In order to maintain the efficacy of that protection, pseudonym and non-publication orders have been made in these proceedings to prohibit the identification of the persons concerned in the Family Court proceedings.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an action for defamation arising out of Family Court proceedings concerning the plaintiff's children. It is an offence contrary to section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to publish information that identifies certain persons in connection with such proceedings. In order to maintain the efficacy of that protection, non-publication and pseudonym orders have been made in these proceedings.
The proceedings in the Family Court involved serious allegations and counter-allegations between the plaintiff and the mother of the children, evidently including a belief expressed by the mother that the plaintiff was homicidal and that it was “only a matter of time” before he murdered the children. Similar concerns were explored as to the mental state of the wife. The matter was heard over 11 days in early 2012. At some point after the judge reserved his decision, the plaintiff became aware of a precedent which caused him to be concerned, in the face of…

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 Williams (pseudonyms)

Details

AGLC: Jones v Williams (pseudonyms) [2018] NSWSC 954
Case: [2018] NSWSC 954
Decision Date: 22 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones v Williams, the plaintiff sought to sue the defendants for defamation. The plaintiff, who is the former husband of the defendant Williams, alleged that defamatory statements were made to the police by the defendants in the context of an application for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. The plaintiff first became aware of these statements well after they were originally made, which raised the issue of whether there was a discernible publication within the limitation period allowed under the applicable legislation. Furthermore, there was a delay in the plaintiff initiating the proceedings, which complicated the assessment of whether it was unreasonable to have commenced the action within the one-year limitation period. The court was tasked with determining whether the limitation period should be extended and, if so, to what extent.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there was a discernible publication within the limitation period as defined by the relevant statute and whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have delayed in commencing the proceedings. In addressing these issues, the court considered several factors, including the plaintiff's knowledge of the defamatory statements, the nature of the statements, and the circumstances leading to the delay in initiating the action. The court also examined the discretionary factors relevant to determining whether the limitation period should be extended and, if so, to what date. These factors included the plaintiff's diligence in pursuing the claim, the degree of fault attributable to the plaintiff for the delay, and the potential prejudice to the defendants if the limitation period were extended.

The court found that while the plaintiff had not made a discernible publication within the limitation period, the factors considered in the exercise of discretion supported an extension of the limitation period. The plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the defamatory statements and the delay in initiating proceedings were largely due to circumstances beyond their control. The court also noted the minimal prejudice to the defendants if the limitation period were extended. Consequently, the court decided to extend the limitation period, allowing the plaintiff to pursue the defamation claim against the defendants. This decision recognised the balance between the plaintiff's right to seek redress and the need to prevent the indefinite pursuit of stale claims.

The final orders of the court were to extend the limitation period for the plaintiff to bring the defamation action against the defendants. The court specified the new end date for the limitation period, enabling the plaintiff to proceed with the legal action. The decision underscored the importance of considering all relevant factors when exercising discretion in relation to limitation periods, particularly in cases involving allegations of defamation and the complexities of timing and knowledge.

Orders