Lee v Keddie

[2011] NSWCA 2

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:	Lee v Keddie
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWCA 2
Hearing Date(s):	Friday 21 January 2011
Decision Date:	21 January 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Allsop P at 1, Tobias JA at 17
Decision:	1 The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The application to vacate the hearing in the defamation list in February be dismissed. 3. The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - Civil - pleadings - amendment - refusal to allow amendment - application for leave to appeal - application to vacate hearing date - no question of principle
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175; House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499; McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 308; Richards v Cornford (No 3) [2010] NSWCA 134
Texts Cited:
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Siu Sheng Lee (First Applicant) Hong Mei Li (Second Applicant) Hong Liu (Third Applicant) Russell Keddie (First Respondent) Scott Roulstone (Second Respondent) Tony Barakat (Third Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel: Mr P Gray SC, Ms C Traill (Applicants) Mr T Tobin QC, Mr R Glasson (Respondents)
- Solicitors:	Solicitors: Horowitz & Bilinsky Solicitors (Applicants) Verekers Solicitors (Respondents)
File number(s):	2007/265163
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:	Supreme Court
- Before:	Nicholas J
- Date of Decision:	17 December 2010
- Citation:
- Court File Number(s)	07/265163
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

1. ALLSOP P: This is an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of the defamation list judge to allow certain amendments to have applied. It is also an application to vacate a three week defamation hearing listed in February 2011. There is no substantive contest in principle in this case. The facts I will not recite in detail.

2. A letter was sent to a number of clients or former clients of the respondents (defendants below) in 2006. A letter was sent in the Chinese language, the clients being Chinese. There is accepted to be a mistake in the translation into the Chinese from the English instructions from the defendants. There appears little doubt that what appeared in Chinese script in the letters was significantly different from the instructions.

3. What appeared in the Chinese version was a significant allegation that the plaintiffs were responsible for acts of some unethical or immoral character. The plaintiffs became aware of the letters and their apparently defamatory character not long after they were sent. They were sent towards the end of 2006. Approximately a year…