District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Parizian v Seven Network Limited [2018] NSWDC 296 Hearing dates: 11 October 2018 Date of orders: 18 October 2018 Decision date: 18 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Plaintiff’s notice of motion seeking an extension of time to commence proceedings pursuant to s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) is dismissed.
(2) Costs reserved with liberty to apply.
(3) The plaintiff is to file and serve any amended statement of claim (if still pursued) in 14 days, such amendments to restrict the claim to the 12-month period prior to the filing of the statement of claim.
(4) The parties have liberty to bring in Short Minutes of Order concerning a timetable for the future conduct of the proceedings.Catchwords: TORT – defamation – application for extension of time to commence proceedings Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 65
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14B and 56A
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)Cases Cited: Ahmed v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 676
Barrett v TCN Nine Pty Limited [2017] NSWCA 304
Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2012) 84 NSWLR 90
Homsi v Nabulsi [2017] NSWDC 16
Houda v State of NSW [2012] NSWSC 1036
Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50
Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers [2010] QCA 175
Rayney v Western Australia (No 3) [2010] WASC 83
Tsiadis v Patterson (2001) 4 VR 114
Van Garderen v Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Limited [2016] VCC 953
Wookey v Quigley (No 2) [2010] WASC 209Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Plaintiff: Boghos Parizian
First Defendant: Seven Network Limited
Second Defendant: Channel Seven Adelaide Pty LtdRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mr M K Rollinson
Defendants: Mr M Richardson
Plaintiff: JN Legal
Defendants: Johnson Winter and Slattery
File Number(s): 2018/56583 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
The plaintiff’s application for extension of time
-
By notice of motion filed on 24 August 2018, the plaintiff seeks orders as follows:
That under s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), the limitation period for the cause of action in respect of the broadcast pleaded in paragraphs 3(a), 4(A) and 4(B)(a), and the publication via the internet website pleaded in paragraphs 3(b) and 4(B)(b), of the Amended Statement of Claim be extended until the date of filing of the Amended Statement of Claim, being 13 June 2018.
Such further or other order as the Court sees fit.
That the costs of the motion be costs in the cause.
The issues for determination
-
The plaintiff initially brought two applications. The first related to the misnomer of the first defendant, which has been corrected from “Seven Network Pty Limited”, a non-existent entity, to “Seven Network Limited”. The defendants do not object to an order under s 65(2)(b) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) substituting “Seven Network Limited” for “Seven Network Pty Limited”, although they point out that the first defendant denies publication of the matter complained of and remains the wrong entity to have been sued.
-
The sole remaining application before…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Parizian v Seven Network Limited 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
- [2018] NSWDC 296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could avail themselves of the extension provided by section 56A, which allows for an extension if proceedings are not instituted within the limitation period due to exceptional circumstances. The plaintiff argued that they were unaware of the defamatory material until a later date, which justified the extension. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's delay in filing the claim was not attributable to exceptional circumstances, and thus, the statutory extension should not be granted.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an extension of time, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension under section 56A. The Court found that the plaintiff had been aware of the potential defamatory material well within the limitation period. Consequently, the plaintiff was directed to file and serve any amended statement of claim within 14 days, restricted to the 12-month period prior to the filing of the statement of claim. Costs were reserved with liberty to apply, and the parties were granted liberty to bring in Short Minutes of Order to establish a timetable for the future conduct of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Plaintiff’s notice of motion seeking an extension of time to commence proceedings pursuant to s 56A Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) is dismissed.
(2) Costs reserved with liberty to apply.
(3) The plaintiff is to file and serve any amended statement of claim (if still pursued) in 14 days, such amendments to restrict the claim to the 12-month period prior to the filing of the statement of claim.
(4) The parties have liberty to bring in Short Minutes of Order concerning a timetable for the future conduct of the proceedings.
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.