Lee v Cho

[2016] NSWDC 36

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lee v Cho [2016] NSWDC 36
Hearing dates:	25 February 2016
Date of orders:	25 February 2016
Decision date:	03 March 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Proceedings be dismissed pursuant to rr 13.4(1)(b), 14.28(1)(a) and 14.28(1)(b) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and s 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). (2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – plaintiff commences proceedings for publications outside limitation period – matters complained of not attached – one set of rolled-up imputations for an unspecified number of publications – failure to comply with orders granting leave to amend or to bring an application for extension of time – defendant’s application for summary judgment granted
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-60 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14B Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4(1)(b), 14.28(1)(a), 14.28(1)(b) and 14.30
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Bi v Mourad [2010] NSWCA 17 Coren v Master Builders Association of New South Wales Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 244 Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1850 Ghosh v Ninemsn Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 334 Kang v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2015] NSWCA 375 Mann v Carnell (1999) 149 FLR 298 Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sperling J, 17 November 1995)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff: Hyung Sup Lee Defendant: Sam Yeol Cho
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Ms C Lin Defendant: Mr R Tassell (solicitor)   Solicitors: Defendant: Pikes & Verekers Lawyers
File Number(s):	2015/334575
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. These are my reasons for granting the defendant’s application pursuant to rr 13.4(1)(b), 14.28(1)(a) and 14.28(1)(b) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) and s 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for dismissal of these proceedings.

2. The plaintiff, at that time self-represented, commenced proceedings on 13 November 2015 against the defendant, a Uniting Church Minister, for an unspecified number of publications he is said to have made to members of the congregation “in June 2013 or thereabouts”, “around that period of time” and “at a later period, including… 2015”. The plaintiff did not attach the contents of any of these publications, even though two were asserted to be in writing. Contrary to r 14.30 UCPR, only one set of rolled-up imputations for all these publications is pleaded (in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim). There is a reference to an asserted failure to apologise despite “the request made by the plaintiff’s solicitor by letters [sic]” but the plaintiff had no solicitor, and no particulars of these claimed requests are provided.

3. It is hard to imagine a more defective pleading. Not only were most of the publications the subject of the claim for defamation statute-barred, but their contents were a mystery.

4. Prior to the first return date of these proceedings, Mr Tassell, who appears for the defendant, wrote…