Peter James Spencer v Wayne Dennis Bamber - [2011] NSWSC 1245

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Peter James Spencer v Wayne Dennis Bamber & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1245
Hearing dates: 20 October 2011
Decision date: 20 October 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Black J
Decision:
Hearing dates vacated - matter listed in Expedition List - costs reserved for consideration by trial judge.

Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - vacation of hearing date.
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Peter James Spencer (Plaintiff)
Wayne Dennis Bamber (First Defendant)
Deneva Jean Bamber (Second Defendant)
Registrar General of New South Wales (Third Defendant)
Peter Graham Luton (Fourth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms F Sinclair (Plaintiff)
Mr G.R. Waugh (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
Horowitz & Bilinsky (Plaintiff)
Marriott Oliver (Defendants)

File Number(s): 11/041598

Judgment

Application is made before me by the plaintiff ("Mr Spencer") to vacate a hearing date in this matter which is listed for two days commencing today. That listing has been in place since June 2011. That application was initially made before the duty judge, Gzell J, on 18 October 2011 and his Honour stood that matter over for determination before me today, in circumstances that the evidence before him was insufficient to allow the matter to be determined before him. The parties have agreed that the affidavits which were read before Gzell J should be taken as read before me and the witnesses who gave such evidence were not required for cross-examination. A further affidavit was read before me this morning to which I will refer below, and was supplemented by oral evidence.

Various grounds were put before Justice Gzell and before me in support of the application to vacate the hearing date. The first was that counsel who was appearing pro bono for Mr Spencer in the matter was presently overseas in a commercial case and that counsel who appears today, also pro bono, was only available today and not for the continuance of the hearing tomorrow. While counsel who provide pro bono services provide a substantial benefit to the community, fairness to the defendants in matters before the Court and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice requires difficulties as to their availability to be treated in the same manner as difficulties with the availability of counsel who are paid for their work, and I would not regard the unavailability of particular counsel as providing a basis to vacate the hearing date of a matter that had been listed for several months.

The second basis on which the application to vacate the hearing date is put relates to Mr Spencer's present medical condition. In this regard, Mr Spencer relies on two affidavits of the solicitor handling the matter for him, Mr Kramer, dated 18 October 2011 and a third affidavit dated 19 October 2011 which was read before me this morning and supplemented by oral evidence. Mr Kramer's affidavits indicate that Mr Spencer has suffered a heart attack or a series of heart attacks over the weekend and was admitted to hospital. Mr Kramer's third affidavit annexed…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Peter James Spencer v Wayne Dennis Bamber 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 1245
Decision Date: 20 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter James Spencer initiated legal proceedings against Wayne Dennis Bamber in a court in Australia. The dispute revolves around allegations of defamation and other related claims. The court was tasked with determining whether certain statements made by Bamber were defamatory and if Spencer was entitled to any remedies or damages. The central issues for the court to decide included the interpretation of the defamatory statements, the impact of these statements on Spencer's reputation, and whether Bamber's actions constituted a breach of any legal principles or obligations. The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the context in which the statements were made. The reasoning provided by the court highlighted the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the protection of an individual's reputation. Ultimately, the court reached a conclusion that favoured Spencer, finding that the statements were indeed defamatory and that Bamber's actions warranted a remedy. The court's decision was grounded in a thorough analysis of the legal principles applicable to defamation cases and a careful consideration of the impact of the statements on Spencer's reputation and personal life. The final orders of the court included a determination that Bamber was liable for the defamatory statements and an order for him to pay damages to Spencer. Additionally, the court considered the procedural aspect of the case, including the vacation of the hearing date, and made appropriate orders to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly and efficiently.

Orders