Nicolson v Florida

[2016] NSWDC 260

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Nicolson v Florida [2016] NSWDC 260
Hearing dates:	20 October 2016
Date of orders:	20 October 2016
Decision date:	20 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Pursuant s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), extend time for the commencement of these proceedings to 29 July 2016. (2) Costs to be costs in the cause. (3) Plaintiff’s proposed amended statement of claim to be served on the defendant within 7 days. (4) Matter stood over to the Defamation List on 3 November 2016 for further directions and/or argument if necessary.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – application for extension of time to commence proceedings – plaintiff unaware of publication until after expiry of limitation period – defendant neither consents to nor opposes the orders sought – extension of time granted
Legislation Cited:	Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 56A
Cases Cited:	Ahmed v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 676 Cassar v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 680 Rayney v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2010] WASC 83 Sun v Hojunara International Group (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1050
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Plaintiff: Geoffrey Christopher Nicolson Defendant: Robert Christian Florida
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr B Goldsmith (solicitor) Defendant: Ms E Hitchen (solicitor) Solicitors: Plaintiff: Goldsmiths Lawyers Defendant: Turner Freeman Lawyers
File Number(s):	2016/229034
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. The plaintiff, by Notice of Motion filed on 16 September 2016, seeks an order pursuant to s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) for an extension of the limitation period to commence proceedings for defamation under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

2. The matters complained of are four oral publications made over a period commencing in March 2014; the final publication was made on a date between April and September 2014.

3. The plaintiff relies upon the factual matters set out in his affidavit of 29 July 2016, the contents of which are set out below.

4. The defendant, who is legally represented and has been served with the notice of motion and supporting affidavit, takes the position that he neither consents to nor opposes the relief sought.

The circumstances in which the matters complained of came to the plaintiff’s attention

5. Mr Nicolson, the plaintiff, sets out in his affidavit that defendant is his relative by marriage and, like him, is an electrician by trade. They both belonged to the same church. After some work-related disputes, the plaintiff decided, in early 2013, that his company would no longer retain the defendant as a sub-contractor or refer work to him.

6. In May 2015 the plaintiff was invited to nominate himself as a board member of a school. However, after he did so, he received a telephone call from the Chairman of the Board, requesting him to withdraw his nomination. The basis of his request was that the Chairman was aware of allegations that the plaintiff was alleged to have engaged in certain inappropriate behaviour (“the allegations”). The Chairman said that the source of these allegations was a…