King v Greenwood (No.2) - [2022] NSWDC 188

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: King & Anor v Greenwood (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 188
Hearing dates: 2 June 2022
Date of orders: 2 June 2022
Decision date: 02 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
Order:
(1) Pursuant to UCPR r 7.36 each of the plaintiffs and the defendant are referred to the registrar for referral to the Pro Bono panel for legal assistance for the conduct of the plaintiffs’ application that the defendant be referred to the Prothonotary for contempt.
(2) Proceedings stood over to 4 August 2022 for further directions and allocation of a hearing date.
(3) Costs reserved.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - litigant in person the subject of an application for referral to the Prothonotary for contempt asks for pro bono assistance - opposing parties also self-represented - both parties referred to the registrar for pro bono assistance pursuant to UCPR r 7.36

Legislation Cited:
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 33
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 7.34, 7.35 and 7.36

Cases Cited:
Environmental Protection Authority v Panther Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2003] NSWLEC 216
Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370
King & Anor v Greenwood [2022] NSWDC 61
Mears v Sydney Anglican Schools Corp [2016] NSWCA 39
Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 22) [2016] NSWSC 1013

Texts Cited:
J Gibson, ‘Identifying defamation law reform issues: ‘A “snapshot” view of defamation judgment data’ (2019) 23 Media & Arts Law Review 4

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Mr C King (plaintiff)
Mrs J King (plaintiff)
Mr A Greenwood (defendant)
Representation: Mr C King, AVL
Mr A Greenwood, AVL
Mrs J King did not appear

File Number(s): 2021/00063201

Judgment

The application before the court

The plaintiffs and defendant are all self-represented. The plaintiffs were successful in defamation proceedings against the defendant (King & Anor v Greenwood [2022] NSWDC 61) and now seek orders for the defendant to be referred to the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales for determination of contempt of court. That application is listed for hearing on 16 June 2022.
The defendant brings an application for pro bono legal assistance. If I make such an order, the hearing date will need to be vacated.
The circumstances of this application raise important issues of case management for the courts as there appears to be a rising number of contempt applications arising out of defamation claims being brought against ordinary members of the community (as opposed to the mass media), largely as a result of social media use.

Background

The plaintiffs, who are the publishers of a local newspaper in the Southern Highlands region, brought proceedings for defamation for two publications hosted by the defendant in February 2021 on his Facebook page. The contents of those publications are described by Abadee DCJ in his judgment of 15 March 2022 (at [2], [3], [12] and [13]). An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant…

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 King v Greenwood (No.2)

Details

AGLC: King v Greenwood (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 188
Case: [2022] NSWDC 188
Decision Date: 02 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v Greenwood (No.2) involved a dispute between self-represented litigants, with the plaintiffs seeking to have the defendant referred to the Prothonotary for contempt. Both parties were unrepresented by legal counsel and the matter was before the court to determine whether each party should be referred to the registrar for pro bono legal assistance under the relevant rules of court.

The court was required to decide whether to exercise its discretion under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) to refer each party to the Pro Bono panel for legal assistance. This was due to the complexity of the proceedings and the potential seriousness of the contempt application.

In exercising its discretion, the court determined that each party should be referred to the registrar for pro bono assistance, in accordance with UCPR rule 7.36. The proceedings were then stood over to allow for further directions and the allocation of a hearing date. The court reserved costs, indicating that these would be considered at a later stage in the proceedings.

In summary, the court ordered that both parties be referred to the Pro Bono panel for legal assistance in relation to the contempt application, and the matter was stood over for further directions. The costs of the proceedings were reserved for future determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order:

(1) Pursuant to UCPR r 7.36 each of the plaintiffs and the defendant are referred to the registrar for referral to the Pro Bono panel for legal assistance for the conduct of the plaintiffs’ application that the defendant be referred to the Prothonotary for contempt.

(2) Proceedings stood over to 4 August 2022 for further directions and allocation of a hearing date.

(3) 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:	King & Anor v Greenwood (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 188
Hearing dates:	2 June 2022
Date of orders:	2 June 2022
Decision date:	02 June 2022
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	Order: (1) Pursuant to UCPR r 7.36 each of the plaintiffs and the defendant are referred to the registrar for referral to the Pro Bono panel for legal assistance for the conduct of the plaintiffs’ application that the defendant be referred to the Prothonotary for contempt. (2) Proceedings stood over to 4 August 2022 for further directions and allocation of a hearing date. (3) Costs reserved.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - litigant in person the subject of an application for referral to the Prothonotary for contempt asks for pro bono assistance - opposing parties also self-represented - both parties referred to the registrar for pro bono assistance pursuant to UCPR r 7.36
Legislation Cited:	Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 33 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 7.34, 7.35 and 7.36
Cases Cited:	Environmental Protection Authority v Panther Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2003] NSWLEC 216 Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370 King & Anor v Greenwood [2022] NSWDC 61 Mears v Sydney Anglican Schools Corp [2016] NSWCA 39 Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 22) [2016] NSWSC 1013
Texts Cited:	J Gibson, ‘Identifying defamation law reform issues: ‘A “snapshot” view of defamation judgment data’ (2019) 23 Media & Arts Law Review 4
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Mr C King (plaintiff) Mrs J King (plaintiff) Mr A Greenwood (defendant)
Representation:	Mr C King, AVL Mr A Greenwood, AVL Mrs J King did not appear
File Number(s):	2021/00063201