Munsie v Dowling - [2015] NSWSC 789

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Munsie v Dowling [2015] NSWSC 789
Hearing dates: 17 June 2015
Date of orders: 17 June 2015
Decision date: 17 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Under r 6.24 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, Ryan Stokes is joined to these proceedings as the third plaintiff;
Grant leave to the plaintiffs to file the second further amended statement of claim in the form attached to the affidavit of Richard Michael Keegan, sworn on 12 June 2015 and marked with a letter A;
The defendant is to file and serve a defence to the second further amended statement of claim within twenty-eight days.

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE – civil – parties – joinder of third plaintiff
PROCEDURE – civil – pleadings – amendment – statement of claim
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW);
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Ms Justine Munsie (First plaintiff)
Mr Kerry Stokes (Second plaintiff)
Mr Shane Dowling (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: S Dawson (Plaintiff)
Self Represented (Defendant)
Solicitors: Addisons Lawyers (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2014/11469

EX TeMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

By a notice of motion filed pursuant to directions made by Garling J, on 11 June 2015, the plaintiffs and Mr Ryan Stokes seek an order under r 6.24 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that Mr Ryan Stokes be joined to the proceedings as a third plaintiff and that the plaintiffs be granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim in the form attached as annexure A to the affidavit of Richard Michael Keegan, sworn 12 June 2015. Mr Keegan is the solicitor with the carriage of this matter in the office of the plaintiffs’ solicitors.
The basis of the application to join Mr Ryan Stokes is that the plaintiffs allege that Mr Dowling has published additional material concerning the conduct of Mr Kerry Stokes, the second plaintiff and of Mr Ryan Stokes, which is defamatory of them.
The proceedings relate to a series of publications by Mr Dowling over a long period of time of various articles on his, I think the correct expression is, website or blog.
The additional matters relied upon by the plaintiffs are referred to for identification purposes, as the 29 March article, the 10 May article and the Stokes' tweets. The Stokes' tweets are said to contain the substance of other articles.
It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the case of the plaintiffs in relation to those matters as set out at [7AB] to [7AK] of the proposed amended statement of claim is that Mr Kerry Stokes and Mr Ryan Stokes according to the imputations allegedly found in the articles, corruptly agreed to injure the defendant by having his website removed from the National Library's archive.
Obviously, without prejudging it, if the matters averred in the proposed amendments are made good at a trial, they are capable of being highly defamatory of Messrs Stokes. They also are capable of forming part of a course…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Munsie v Dowling

Details

AGLC: Munsie v Dowling [2015] NSWSC 789
Case: [2015] NSWSC 789
Decision Date: 17 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Munsie v Dowling, the court was asked to determine the appropriate procedural steps following the joinder of a third plaintiff into an existing civil action. The case involved an ongoing dispute over a property transaction, with the original plaintiff, Munsie, seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract by the defendant, Dowling. The third plaintiff, whose joinder necessitated the procedural issue, was similarly aggrieved by the same transaction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the joinder of the third plaintiff was permissible under the circumstances and, if so, whether the defendant's statement of claim could be amended to include the new plaintiff's claims. The court had to consider the applicable rules of civil procedure, particularly those concerning the joinder of parties and the amendment of pleadings.

The court determined that the joinder of the third plaintiff was appropriate, as all parties shared a common interest and the claims arose from the same set of facts. The court further found that the defendant's statement of claim could be amended to include the new plaintiff's claims, provided that the amendment did not prejudice the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the amendment was made within a reasonable time and did not cause substantial delay or unfairness to the defendant. The court granted leave for the joinder and the amendment of the statement of claim, subject to certain conditions designed to protect the defendant's rights.

Orders