Lee v Hwang; Hwang v Lee

Link copied
Case Copied 48 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee & Ors v Hwang & Ors; Hwang v Lee & Ors [2022] NSWDC 182
Hearing dates: 31 March and 20 May 2022
Date of orders: 30 May 2022
Decision date: 30 May 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

Order:

(1)   Applications by the plaintiffs in proceedings 2017/00307536 for the defence in those proceedings to be struck out and for the assessment of damages dismissed; the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants’ costs.

(2)   Application by the defendants in proceedings 2018/00195738 for the statement of claim to be struck out is dismissed; the defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

(3)   Liberty to the parties to approach the List Judge for allocation of a hearing date as a seven-day non-jury defamation trial of both proceedings 2017/00307536 and 2018/00195738, noting that the evidence in one is to be the evidence in the other of these proceedings.

Catchwords:

TORT - defamation - application for summary dismissal of proceedings on the basis of belated discovery of a suspicious-looking screenshot and failure to comply with a self-executing order to provide four translations - application dismissed with costs

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56 - 62, 67

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 30

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 14.28

Cases Cited:

Allen v Mathews [2007] EWCA Civ 216

Armin v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 321

Barakat v Goritsas [2012] NSWCA 8

Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (2010) 278 ALR 232

Chong v CC Containers Pty Ltd (2015) 49 VR 402

Clark v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 139

Douglas & Anor v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 126

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (Permanent Stay) [2019] FCA 802

Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International B.V. (Permanent Stay) [2021] FCAFC 77

Hunt v Times Newspapers Pty Ltd [2013] EWHC 1868 (QB)

In the matter of Ji Woo International Education Centre Pty Limited (in liquidation) (deregistered) [2019] NSWSC 30

In the matter of Ji Woo International Education Centre Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1060

In the matter of Ji Woo International Education Centre Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 93

Lunt v Victoria International Container Terminal Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1016

Massoud v Radio 2GB Sydney Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] NSWDC 336

Michaud v Stefanovski [2016] WASCA 85

Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446

Nitopi v Nitopi [2021] NSWSC 669

Ovchinnikov v Russian Sports and Social Club Inc [2012] NSWSC 828

Palavi v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 264

Palavi v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 264

Pentridge Village Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2021] VSC 848

Powell v Boladz [2003] All E R 131

Powell v UK (2000) 30 EHRR CD 362

Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2002] All E R 74

Rinehart v Rinehart [2022] NSWCA 66

The Owners – Strata Plan 87265 v Saaib; Alexandrova v The Owners – Strata Plan 87265 [2022] NSWCA 63

Various…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lee v Hwang; Hwang v Lee and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWDC 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Lee and the other plaintiffs, initiated proceedings against the defendants, Hwang and the other defendants, alleging defamation. The defendants, Hwang and the other defendants, commenced a separate proceeding against the plaintiffs, Lee and the other plaintiffs, for defamation. The plaintiffs sought summary dismissal of the defendants' proceeding on the basis of belated discovery of a suspicious-looking screenshot and the defendants' failure to comply with a self-executing order to provide four translations. The defendants opposed the application, arguing the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a self-executing order to provide four translations justified the dismissal of their proceeding. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' proceeding should be struck out due to their failure to comply with a self-executing order to provide four translations and whether the defendants' proceeding should be struck out due to the belated discovery of a suspicious-looking screenshot.

The court found that the plaintiffs' proceeding should not be struck out as there was no basis to conclude that the defendants would not suffer injustice if the proceeding was not struck out. The court also found that the defendants' proceeding should not be struck out as the belated discovery of a suspicious-looking screenshot did not justify the dismissal of the proceeding. The court found that the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a self-executing order to provide four translations did not warrant the striking out of their proceeding. The court found that the defendants' proceeding should not be dismissed as the belated discovery of a suspicious-looking screenshot did not prejudice the defendants' case. The court dismissed both applications with costs, noting that the evidence in one proceeding was to be the evidence in the other.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order:

(1) Applications by the plaintiffs in proceedings 2017/00307536 for the defence in those proceedings to be struck out and for the assessment of damages dismissed; the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants’ costs.

(2) Application by the defendants in proceedings 2018/00195738 for the statement of claim to be struck out is dismissed; the defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

(3) Liberty to the parties to approach the List Judge for allocation of a hearing date as a seven-day non-jury defamation trial of both proceedings 2017/00307536 and 2018/00195738, noting that the evidence in one is to be the evidence in the other of these proceedings.

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.