Martyn John Prowse v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2016] NSWSC 139

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Martyn John Prowse v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 139
Hearing dates:	12 February 2016
Date of orders:	12 February 2016
Decision date:	12 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	McCallum J
Decision:	Rulings on interrogatories
Catchwords:	DEFAMATION – rulings on interlocutory processes – no question of principle
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Martyn John Prowse (Plaintiff) Harbour City Radio Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Ray Hadley (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: R Rasmussen (Plaintiff) M Richardson (Defendant)   Solicitors: Kalantzis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2014/321615

Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation listed today for the second listing in accordance with the practice note, SC CL 4. The parties have argued objections to a number of categories for discovery and interrogatories sought of the defendant by the plaintiff.

2. The first objection is to interrogatory 29, which relates to the expenses and revenue of the plaintiff’s business for the period of one financial year. I am satisfied that the interrogatory is relevant to the truth of the imputation that the plaintiff “ripped off customers by charging them $30 to paint one or two numbers on the curb outside their house”. I do not think the defendant should need both discovery and interrogatories in respect of that issue. Accordingly I allow interrogatory 29 but reject the corresponding category for discovery, category 3(d).

3. The second objection relates to a category for discovery and an interrogatory directed to obtaining complaints received by the plaintiff concerning the conduct of his business. I am satisfied that, although the matter complained of related to only one incident, evidence of other similar complaints by different customers could potentially rationally affect the assessment of an issue in the proceedings. Again, however, I do not think the defendant should need both discovery and interrogatories. I allow interrogatory 30 and reject the corresponding category for discovery, category 5. The date of interrogatory 30 should, however, be confined to January 2012 to the end of October 2013.

4. The final objection relates to a question directed to ascertaining the date on which the plaintiff or his employees were in the area when the particular complaint the subject of the matter complained of was made. I am satisfied that the defendant should be allowed that interrogatory but that it should be confined to “on or about 31 October 2013”, being the date of the particular complaint reported in the matter complained of.

5. The plaintiff has leave to interrogate in accordance with those rulings.

6. I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of preparing to argue the objections to the defendant’s contextual imputations, which have now been appropriated by the plaintiff.

7. I direct the parties to approach the List Clerk within two working days to obtain a hearing date for the hearing of the action.

8. By consent I refer the proceedings for a court-annexed mediation. I include within the direction to approach the List Clerk that the parties should also obtain a date for the mediation and a hearing date.

Decision last updated: 26 February 2016