(1) Pursuant to s 21B of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) the limitation period for the plaintiff’s causes of action for defamation in respect of the publications included at Schedule A and Schedule B of the Amended Statement of Claim respectively is extended to 15 July 2019.
(2) To the extent necessary to do so, the extension of the limitation period in order 1 is similarly extended pursuant to the following:
(3) The costs of the plaintiff’s application in proceedings filed on 10 June 2020 be paid by the defendant, with such costs to:
(a) include the costs of the application to amend the originating application and statement of claim determined by Crowe AJ on 5 June 2020; and
(b) not be recoverable until the conclusion of the proceeding.
Catchwords:
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — Defamation – application for extension of limitation period to commence action in defamation pursuant to s 21B of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) – whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for applicant to have commenced action in defamation within one year of the publication complained of – where circumstances included the publication being produced in other court proceedings and the plaintiff was unable to get access to the publication or to obtain a release from the Harman undertaking – application granted
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Paule v McKay (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Paule v McKay (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 190
Case
[2022] ACTSC 190
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Spiro Paule, sought leave to pursue defamation proceedings against the defendant, David McKay, for an email sent by McKay to ASIC representatives on 24 August 2016. Leave was required due to a statutory limitation period of one year. The limitation period expired on 15 July 2017, but Paule filed his statement of claim on 15 July 2019. The present application was filed on 10 June 2020, seeking an extension of the time within which to commence the proceedings. The Court must determine whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for Paule to have commenced an action in relation to the matter complained of within one year from the date of the publication, as required by s 21B(2) of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT). The Court must consider the totality of the objective circumstances that cohered to bring about the fact that Paule did not sue within one year of the publication. The Court found that it was not reasonable for Paule to have commenced proceedings within the one-year period, as he did not have access to the relevant documents and was unaware of their existence or content. The Court exercised its discretion to extend the time in which to commence proceedings to the date when Paule's statement of claim was filed, being 15 July 2019. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff's application in proceedings filed on 10 June 2020, including the costs of the application to amend the originating application and statement of claim determined by Crowe AJ on 5 June 2020. The costs were not to be recoverable until the conclusion of the proceeding.