Piscioneri v Reardon (No 2)

Case [2017] ACTSC 242


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Piscioneri v Reardon (No 2)

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 242

Hearing Date:

17 September 2015

DecisionDates:

17 September 2015, 28 August 2017

ReasonsDate:

28 August 2017

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

17 September 2015

1.    That new proceedings be commenced and that the Application in Proceedings filed in the current proceedings be removed from the current proceedings and started as the Originating Application in the fresh proceedings.

2.    That Edward Campbell Patrick Earl be examined in relation to the identity and whereabouts of the individual who posted as “Shinymetalass” on the “ZGeek.com” forum.

3.    That the question of costs be reserved.

28 August 2017

4.   That the application for costs by Gabriella Jean Piscioneri be dismissed.

5.   That Gabriella Jean Piscioneri pay the costs of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl of the application for preliminary discovery and the examination of Mr Earl.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISCOVERY – Preliminary discovery – application for order that witness be orally examined as to the identity of persons posting online under pseudonyms – pre-conditions for an examination made out – s 650 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Award of costs – manner in which a preliminary discovery application is defended is relevant to costs – costs are at the discretion of the Court – plaintiff to pay the costs for the examination of the witness

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 5, 6, 61, 75, 76, 211, 650, 650(1)(d), 650(8), 651, 653, 1703, 1721, 6606, 6611

Supreme Court Rules 1937 (ACT), O 34A
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 3
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.1, 5.8

Cases Cited:

Age Co Ltd v Liu [2013] NSWCA 26; 82 NSWLR 268

Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd v Price Waterhouse Coopers Legal [2002] NSWSC 138
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Seven Network Ltd [2005] FCA 1851
Bacich v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1992) 29 NSWLR 1
Blann v Nationwide News Ltd (1998) A Def R 52-050
Blunden v Commonwealth [2014] ACTSC 123
Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32
CGU Insurance Ltd v Malaysia International Shipping Corp Berhad [2001] FCA 1223; 187 ALR 279
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 10
Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Ltd [2015] FCA 317; 245 FCR 129
Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v Lah [2009] ACTSC 113
G Breschi & Son Pty Ltd v AFT Ltd [1988] VR 109
GJ v AS (No 4) [2017] ACTCA 7
Gray v Richards (No 2) [2014] HCA 47; 89 ALJR 113
Hardy v Wilson (1883) 9 VLR (Eq) 135
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic [2003] VSCA 161; 9 VR 1
Hordern House Pty Ltd v Arnold [1989] VR 402
Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Civil Aviation Authority (1995) 217 ALR 303
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuango (1987) 8 NSWLR…

Continue reading Piscioneri v Reardon (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Piscioneri v Reardon (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 242
Case
[2017] ACTSC 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Piscioneri v Reardon (No 2), the plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to disclose the identity of individuals posting online under pseudonyms. The application was brought in the context of proceedings initiated by the plaintiff, Gabriella Jean Piscioneri, against the defendant, Edward Campbell Patrick Earl, and others. The plaintiff sought the disclosure to assist in identifying the authors of defamatory posts made on an online forum. The legal issues before the court involved whether the application for preliminary discovery was properly made and if the pre-conditions for such an order were met.

The court held that the application was valid and the pre-conditions for ordering preliminary discovery were satisfied. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a need for the discovery, that the information was likely to exist, and that it was not available through other means. The court emphasised the importance of the manner in which such applications are defended, noting that it could be relevant to the award of costs. The court concluded that the plaintiff's application met the statutory requirements and ordered that Edward Campbell Patrick Earl be examined regarding the identity and whereabouts of the individual posting as "Shinymetalass" on the "ZGeek.com" forum.

Following the grant of the order for preliminary discovery, the plaintiff sought an award of costs for the application. The court considered the manner in which the defendant had defended the application and concluded that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the application and the examination. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for costs and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs for the application and the examination.

Orders

Orders of the court

17 September 2015

1. That new proceedings be commenced and that the Application in Proceedings filed in the current proceedings be removed from the current proceedings and started as the Originating Application in the fresh proceedings.

2. That Edward Campbell Patrick Earl be examined in relation to the identity and whereabouts of the individual who posted as “Shinymetalass” on the “ZGeek.com” forum.

3. That the question of costs be reserved.

28 August 2017

4. That the application for costs by Gabriella Jean Piscioneri be dismissed.

5. That Gabriella Jean Piscioneri pay the costs of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl of the application for preliminary discovery and the examination of Mr Earl.

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.