Nasr v State of New South Wales

[2015] NSWCA 293

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Nasr v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 293
Hearing dates:	24 September 2015
Date of orders:	24 September 2015
Decision date:	24 September 2015
Before:	Macfarlan JA at [1]; Emmett JA at [5]
Decision:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Catchwords:	APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – defamation claim statute barred – leave refused
Legislation Cited:	Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14B(3), s 56A(4)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Nabil Nasr (Appellant) State of NSW (Respondent)
Representation:	Appellant (Self represented) E Raper (Respondent)   Solicitors: Appellant (Self represented) McCabes Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2015/158802
Publication restriction:	No
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Common Law Citation: [2015] NSWSC 584 Date of Decision: 1 May 2015 Before: McCallum J File Number(s): 2015/31652

Judgment

1. MACFARLAN JA: This is an application by Mr Nabil Nasr for leave to appeal against a decision of McCallum J dated 1 May 2015 dismissing Mr Nasr’s defamation proceedings, with costs ([2015] NSWSC 584).

2. The proceedings were commenced by a statement of claim filed on 2 February 2015. As her Honour pointed out, Mr Nasr’s complaints lack clarity. Nevertheless, it is clear that his claim is one for damages for defamation of him alleged to have occurred in May 2009.

3. Section 14B(3) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) imposes a one year time limitation for the commencement of defamation proceedings, running from the date on which the defamatory matter was published. Whilst s 56A(4) permits the Court to extend that limitation period, the subsection precludes the Court extending the period beyond three years from the date on which the defamatory matter was published. That period expired long before the commencement of Mr Nasr’s proceedings.

4. In these circumstances, the primary judge was correct to hold that Mr Nasr’s claim is statute barred and that his proceedings should be struck out. As any appeal by Mr Nasr would not be arguable, his application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs.

5. EMMETT JA: I agree.

**********