Moselmane v Jones

Case [2002] NSWDC 1


District Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

Moselmane v Jones & Anor

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2002] NSWDC 1

Hearing Date(s): 

22 July 2002

Date of Orders:

14 August 2002

Decision Date: 

14 August 2002

Jurisdiction: 

Civil

Before: 

Gibson DCJ

Decision: 

Orders:
(1)   Defendants' application dismissed.
(2) Defendants pay plaintiff's costs, assessable forthwith pursuant to Part 39A r 8 District Court Rules.
(3)   Plaintiff file amended Statement of Claim 14 days from 22 July 2002.
(4)   Defendants notify plaintiff of objections to Amended Statement of Claim 14 days from receipt of this document.
(5)   Matter placed in Defamation Running List on 16 September 2002 for further timetable.

Catchwords: 

TORT – Defamation – interpretation of s.76A of District Act (NSW) – trial by jury – “the interests of justice”

Legislation Cited: 

Coroners Act 1980 (NSW) s 33AA
District Court Act 1973 (NSW) ss 76A, 77(3) and 126
Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s 7A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127 and 128
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) section 40
Juries Act (NT) s 7
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross- Vesting) Act 1987 s.17
Supreme Court Rules orders 5.08 and 47.02(1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 22

Cases Cited: 

Attorney-General for NSW v Milat (1995) 37 NSWLR 370
Autodesk v Dyason (1993) 176 CLR 300
Buck v Jones [2002] NSWCA 8
Channel Seven Ply Ltd v Parras [2002] NSWCA 202)
Charlwood Industries Ply Ltd v Brent [2002] NSWCA 201
Cinevest Pty Limited v Yirandi [2001] NSWCA 68
Dietrich v R (1997) 177 CLR 292
Dojas v TCN Channel Nine Ply Ltd [2001] NSWCA 398
Geaghan v D 'Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks [2002] HCA 22
Halbish v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (Supreme Court of NSW, Newman J, 16 February 1999, unreported
Hart v Wrenn (1995) 5 NTLR 17
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 682
Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 22
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Kowaiski [2000] SAWCT 123
Mularczyk v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 467
Nationwide News Pty Limited v Bradshaw (1986) 84 FLR 49
Nikolopoulos v Greek Herald Ply Ltd [2001] NSWCA 41
Pavy v John Fairfax Publications Ply Limited [2002] NSWCA 46
Prebble v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Levine J, 11 July 1997, unreported
R v BK [2000] NSWCCA 4
Radio Sydney 2UE Ply Ltd v Parker (1992 - 3) 29 NSWLR 448
Rivkin v John Fairfax Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 87
Rogers v Nationwide News Ply Ltd [2002] NSWCA 71
Sarma v Federal Capital Press [2002] NSWCA 93
United States v Gonzalez & Ramirez (Seventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, 95-2297, 95-2298)

Category: 

Procedural rulings

Parties: 

Mr Shaoquett Moselmane (Plaintiff)
Mr Alan Jones (First Defendant)
Harbour Radio Ply Limited t/as Radio 2GB (Second Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel:
Plaintiff: A Dibb
Defendants: T D Blackburn

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Darryl Barlow & Company
Defendants: Gilbert & Tobin

File Number(s): 

4085/2002

Publication Restriction: 

Nil

JUDGMENT

A. The application before the court

  1. The defendants seek orders pursuant…

Continue reading Moselmane v Jones

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Moselmane v Jones [2002] NSWDC 1
Case
[2002] NSWDC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moselmane v Jones, the plaintiff, Moselmane, brought a defamation action against the defendants, Jones and another. The nature of the dispute centred around comments made by the defendants that were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 76A of the District Act (NSW), which pertains to the right to trial by jury in defamation cases, and whether the interests of justice mandated a jury trial in this instance. The court had to consider the statutory requirements and the implications of any error in the initial trial procedure on the outcome of the case.

The court ruled that the defendants' application was dismissed. It was determined that the error in the initial trial procedure did not affect the outcome of the case, and therefore, there was no need for a jury trial. The court further ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs assessable forthwith pursuant to Part 39A rule 8 of the District Court Rules. Additionally, the plaintiff was instructed to file an amended Statement of Claim within 14 days from 22 July 2002. The defendants were required to notify the plaintiff of any objections to the Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days of receipt. Finally, the matter was placed in the Defamation Running List on 16 September 2002 for further scheduling.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders:

(1) Defendants' application dismissed.

(2) Defendants pay plaintiff's costs, assessable forthwith pursuant to Part 39A r 8 District Court Rules.

(3) Plaintiff file amended Statement of Claim 14 days from 22 July 2002.

(4) Defendants notify plaintiff of objections to Amended Statement of Claim 14 days from receipt of this document.

(5) Matter placed in Defamation Running List on 16 September 2002 for further timetable.

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.