Piggott v Van Der Veen

Case [2025] NSWDC 391

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Piggott v Van Der Veen [2025] NSWDC 391
Hearing dates: 30 September 2025
Date of orders: 2 October 2025
Decision date: 02 October 2025
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph [43]

Catchwords:

TORT – defamation – motion for summary dismissal - adequacy of concerns notice and statement of claim – plaintiff’s address for service not a place of business – whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity costs

Legislation Cited:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 142

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 10A, 12A and 12B

Cases Cited:

Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 471 and Kostov v Zhang; Kostov v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2017] NSWDC 89

Cavar v Campbelltown Catholic Club Ltd [2024] NSWCA 126

Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 353

Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185

Durand v Lawrence [2025] QDC 129

Eppinga v Kalil & Anor (No 2) [2022] NSWDC 591

Hanna v Registrar of the Court of Appeal of NSW and the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [2006] NSWSC 564

Hooper v Catholic Family Services trading as Centacare Catholic Family Services [2023] FedCFamC2G 323

Hoser v Herald and Weekly Times Pty Limited & Anor (Ruling) [2022] VCC 2213

Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370

Khan v Hassan (Ruling No 3) [2023] VCC 2243

Khan v Hassan (Ruling) [2023] VCC 852

M1 v R1 [2022] NSWDC 409

Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198

Randell v McLachlan [2022] NSWDC 506

Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces) [2014] EWFC 35

Reiter v News Corp Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VSC 54

Sheen v Burke [1993] 1 VR 584

Teh v Woodworth [2022] NSWDC 411

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Plaintiff: Mark Piggott
Defendant: John Van Der Veen
Representation: Solicitors:
Plaintiff: self-represented
Defendant: BlackBay Lawyers
File Number(s): 2025/00257062
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The application before the court

  1. The plaintiff, by statement of claim filed on 6 July 2025, brings proceedings for defamation for emails sent to himself and to a conference venue site (info@winterfest.com.au) by the defendant. The texts of these emails and the dates on which they were sent are unspecified; the only description of them is set out in the “acts of defamation” referred to in paragraph 8 of the pleading, which appears to roll up all correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant over a period of about ten months.

  2. The defendant, by notice of motion filed on 3 September 2025, seeks the dismissal of these proceedings on the grounds that they are (in relation to the publications prior to the 12-month period prior to filing) statute-barred under s 14B of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) and, further, disclose no reasonable cause of action by reason of failures to comply with ss 10A, 12A and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (“the Act”).

  3. The plaintiff acknowledges that the proceedings are brought out of time in relation to the first two publications but…

Continue reading Piggott v Van Der Veen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Piggott v Van Der Veen [2025] NSWDC 391
Case
[2025] NSWDC 391
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Piggott v Van Der Veen involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Piggott, against the defendant, Van Der Veen. The dispute centred on allegedly defamatory statements made by Van Der Veen, which Piggott claimed had caused harm to his reputation. The matter was before the court to determine the adequacy of the notice of concerns and statement of claim provided by Piggott and whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis. The court also examined whether Piggott's address for service constituted a place of business, which could impact the service of legal documents and the enforcement of any potential judgment.

The central legal issues before the court included whether the notice of concerns and statement of claim were sufficient in form and content to meet the statutory requirements and if Piggott's address for service qualified as a place of business. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an indemnity costs order was appropriate in light of the circumstances surrounding the proceedings, including the defendant's conduct and the nature of the claim.

The court found that the notice of concerns was inadequate as it did not fully comply with the statutory requirements, lacking sufficient detail regarding the defamatory statements. The statement of claim was also deemed inadequate as it did not sufficiently particularise the alleged defamatory imputations. Furthermore, the court concluded that Piggott's address for service did not meet the criteria of a place of business, which could have implications for the enforceability of any future judgment. Given these findings, the court determined that an indemnity costs order was warranted, reflecting the circumstances of the case and the defendant's conduct.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the proceedings for the reasons outlined above and ordered that costs be awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis. The detailed findings on the inadequacy of the notice of concerns and statement of claim, as well as the characterisation of Piggott's address for service, underscore the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in defamation cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [43]

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.