District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Park v Lee [2016] NSWDC 75 Hearing dates: 5 May 2016 Date of orders: 13 May 2016 Decision date: 13 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Proceedings dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis.Catchwords: TORT – defamation – plaintiff brings proceedings for defamation for two witness statements provided to a court in South Korea – no publication to any persons other than the parties, their legal representatives and the court in South Korea – no publication in any State or Territory of Australia – jurisdiction – whether either the Supreme Court or District Court of New South Wales have jurisdiction in relation to a claim in tort for a publication outside the jurisdiction – forum non conveniens – whether the District Court of New South Wales is a convenient forum – proportionality – whether disproportionate interests at stake – proceedings struck out with an order for indemnity costs Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 61
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 9(1), 44(1)(a) and 47
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 120
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 23
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 6.43, 6.44, 12.7, 13.4(1)(b) and 14.28Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Hanrahan [1982] 2 NSWLR 823
Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board) [1993] No 34, 1993 Carswell BC 47, 77 BCLR (2d) 62, 102 CLR (4th) 96
Barach v University of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 431
Bleyer v Google Inc (2014) 88 NSWLR 670; [2014] NSWCA 897
Calabro v Zappia [2010] NSWDC 127
Cumberland v Clark (1996) 39 NSWLR 514
Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Evers v Firth (1986) 10 NSWLR 22
Eyre v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1967) NZLR 851
Ghosh v Ninemsn Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 25
Hart v Gumpach (1872) 9 Moo 241, 17 ER 505
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 6 September 1996)
Maple v David Syme & Co [1975] 1 NSWLR 97
Mills v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-714
Muscutt v Courcelles (2002) 13 CCLT (3d)161, 26 CPC (5th) 206, 60 OR (3d) 20
Nicholls v Michael Wilson and Partners Limited [2010] NSWCA 222
Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 187 ALR 1; [2002] HCA 10
Tyne & Anor v USB AG (No 3) [2016] FCA 5
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538Texts Cited: R E Brown, Brown on Defamation (Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States), Second Edition (Carswell)
Peter Taylor, Dr Elwyn Elms, Michael Meek SC, The Hon Justice Geoffrey Bellew, Ritchie’s Uniform Law and Procedure NSW (LexisNexis)Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Yeun Sook Park
First Defendant: Bonnie Hoijung Lee
Second Defendant: Kyung-Gon ParkRepresentation: Counsel:
Continue reading Park v Lee
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Park v Lee [2016] NSWDC 75
- Case
- [2016] NSWDC 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Park, brought proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales against the defendants, Lee and another, for defamation. The defamation arose from two witness statements provided to a court in South Korea. The plaintiff alleged that the statements were defamatory and published in South Korea and Australia. The defendants argued that the statements were not published in any state or territory of Australia, and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction over the claim.
The primary issue before the court was whether either the Supreme Court or District Court of New South Wales had jurisdiction to hear a claim in tort for a publication outside the jurisdiction. The court considered the relevant case law and concluded that there was no jurisdiction, as the publication occurred in South Korea and not in Australia. Additionally, the court examined the principle of forum non conveniens and whether the District Court of New South Wales was a convenient forum. The court found that there were disproportionate interests at stake and that the proceedings in South Korea were a more appropriate forum for the dispute.
In light of the lack of jurisdiction and the application of the forum non conveniens principle, the court dismissed the proceedings. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis. The decision highlights the importance of jurisdiction and the appropriate forum for defamation claims involving publications outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts.
The primary issue before the court was whether either the Supreme Court or District Court of New South Wales had jurisdiction to hear a claim in tort for a publication outside the jurisdiction. The court considered the relevant case law and concluded that there was no jurisdiction, as the publication occurred in South Korea and not in Australia. Additionally, the court examined the principle of forum non conveniens and whether the District Court of New South Wales was a convenient forum. The court found that there were disproportionate interests at stake and that the proceedings in South Korea were a more appropriate forum for the dispute.
In light of the lack of jurisdiction and the application of the forum non conveniens principle, the court dismissed the proceedings. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis. The decision highlights the importance of jurisdiction and the appropriate forum for defamation claims involving publications outside the jurisdiction of Australian courts.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Proceedings dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis.
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.