FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 1608
File number: NSD 673 of 2022 Judgment of: WIGNEY J Date of judgment: 22 December 2022 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for supplementary discovery and interrogatories – subsequent application for joinder and amendment of pleadings – consideration of impending trial date – consideration of s 37M of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – dismissal of discovery and interrogatories applications Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Cases cited: Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1275 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Number of paragraphs: 13 Date of hearing: 30 November, 1 December 2022 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms S Chrysanthou SC Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr J Churchill Counsel for the Respondents: Mr M Hodge KC and Ms C Amato Solicitor for the Respondents: Marque Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 673 of 2022 BETWEEN: LACHLAN KEITH MURDOCH
Applicant
AND: PRIVATE MEDIA PTY LIMITED
First Respondent
BERNARD KEANE
Second Respondent
PETER FRAY
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
WIGNEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 DECEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The outstanding interlocutory applications which were advanced orally at the case management hearings on 30 November and 1 December 2022 be dismissed.
2.The costs of those applications be reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WIGNEY J:
The applicant in this matter, Mr Lachlan Murdoch, has sued Private Media Pty Ltd and two of its officers or employees, collectively referred to as Crikey, for defamation. The general nature of the alleged defamation is summarised in an earlier judgment: Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1275. The trial is currently set down to commence on 27 March 2023.
At the case management hearing on 30 November 2022, the parties each sought various procedural orders. Some of the orders turned out to be uncontentious and were in due course made. Other proposed orders were highly contentious. That resulted in lengthy argument and the need to adjourn the case management hearing to 1 December 2022 to hear further submissions.
The orders proposed by Mr Murdoch which were particularly contentious concerned discovery and interrogatories. Mr Murdoch contended, in summary, that the list of documents that Crikey had filed in compliance, or purported compliance, with an order for standard discovery was deficient and that Crikey should be required to give supplementary discovery to address those alleged deficiencies. Mr Murdoch also sought leave to administer interrogatories to Crikey. The proposed interrogatories involved a total of 181 questions, though many of those questions included multiple sub-questions. It would not be unfair to say that the nature and content of Mr Murdoch’s proposed interrogatories was extraordinary, though more pejorative adjectives could equally be employed.
The contentious orders proposed by Crikey also included leave to issue some interrogatories, though the number of interrogatories was…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd (No 3) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] FCA 1608
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to consider whether the applications for supplementary discovery and interrogatories should be granted, as well as the requests to join new parties and amend the pleadings. The court also needed to assess the applications in the context of the impending trial date and the provisions of section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which pertains to the court's discretion in managing case progression and the timing of applications. The court was tasked with balancing the need for full disclosure and the rights of the parties against the potential prejudice that might result from delays and the impact on the efficient administration of justice.
The court dismissed the applications for supplementary discovery and interrogatories, finding that the requests were not justified under the circumstances. The court considered the timing of the applications, the fact that they were made shortly before the trial date, and the likelihood that the information sought could have been obtained earlier in the proceedings. Additionally, the court concluded that the proposed amendments to the pleadings would have caused significant prejudice to the respondent, Private Media Pty Ltd. The court's decision was influenced by its desire to ensure the efficient progression of the case and to avoid unnecessary delays. The costs of the interlocutory applications were reserved for a later determination.
The court ordered that the outstanding interlocutory applications be dismissed and that the costs of those applications be reserved. The matter was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which provides for the entry of orders in cases before the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The outstanding interlocutory applications which were advanced orally at the case management hearings on 30 November and 1 December 2022 be dismissed.
2. The costs of those applications be reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.