Roberts v Manning (No 2) - [2020] NSWDC 525

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roberts v Manning (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 525
Hearing dates: 31 July 2020
Date of orders: 31 July 2020
Decision date: 07 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
Grant the defendant’s application for these proceedings to be listed together for hearing before the same trial judge, with the proviso that the sequence of the hearing is to be a matter for the trial judge.

Catchwords:
TORT – defamation – plaintiff brings two actions for defamation against the same defendants – defendants’ application for the hearings to be heard together – order for proceedings to listed together for hearing before the same trial judge, with the proviso that the sequence of the hearing is to be a matter for the trial judge

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56-62
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 23, 38
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 28.5

Cases Cited:
Douglas v McLernon (No 4) [2016] WASC 320
Ghose v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd [2010] NSWSC 110
Herron v HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1495
Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699
Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd v Barclay [2020] FCA 857
Roberts v Manning Community News Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] NSWDC 301

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Plaintiff:
Lennard Bruce Roberts
First Defendant:
The Manning Community News Pty Ltd (ACN:605502378)
Second Defendant:
Grace Dianne Morrissey
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Ms C Amato
Defendants: Mr R Potter
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Alliance Unity Law
Defendants: Wotton + Kearney

File Number(s): 2019/00226972
2019/00385013
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The application before the court

As is set out in my earlier judgement in these proceedings (Roberts v Manning Community News Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] NSWDC 301), the plaintiff brings two proceedings for defamation against the same defendants in this court. I made the following case management orders in proceedings 2019/226972 on 31 July 2020:

I grant the defendant an extension (if required) having regard to the parties correspondence for the purposes of filing a defence in 2019/385013, such extension to permit an amended defence to be filed by 5 PM on 3 August 2020.

I grant the defendant’s application for these proceedings to be listed together for hearing before the same trial judge, with the proviso that the sequence of the hearing is to be a matter for the trial judge.

I grant the parties leave to approach this judge for a hearing date, estimate of seven days, with country witnesses.

Costs are reserved.

Identical orders were made in proceedings 2019/385013. Conformably with those orders, both these proceedings have been fixed for hearing to commence on Monday, 28 June 2021.
I set out below my reasons for making order (2).

The background to these proceedings

In July 2018 the defendants published the first of a series of articles critical of the plaintiff in “The Manning Community Newspaper”, as well as on its website. The July 2018…

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.

Continue reading Roberts v Manning (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Manning (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 525
Case: [2020] NSWDC 525
Decision Date: 07 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roberts v Manning (No 2) was brought before the court concerning two actions for defamation initiated by the plaintiff against the same defendants. The plaintiff, Roberts, sought damages for defamatory statements made by the defendants, Manning, in two separate instances. The defendants applied for the two defamation actions to be consolidated and heard together before the same trial judge, aiming for efficiency and consistency in the judicial process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the two defamation actions should be heard together, with the same trial judge presiding over both cases. The defendants argued that consolidation was necessary to avoid duplication and to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the issues at hand. The court needed to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by consolidating the proceedings and, if so, under what conditions.

In ruling on the application, the court considered the principles of judicial economy and the interests of justice. The court recognised that consolidating the two defamation actions could lead to a more efficient and economical use of judicial resources. However, the court also noted the importance of ensuring that the sequence of the hearings did not unfairly prejudice any party. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' application, ordering that the proceedings be listed together for hearing before the same trial judge. The sequence of the hearings, however, was left to the discretion of the trial judge, ensuring that any potential prejudice could be managed appropriately during the proceedings.

The court's order was clear and precise, providing that the two defamation actions were to be heard together before the same trial judge, while leaving the sequence of the hearings to the trial judge's discretion. This decision aimed to balance the principles of judicial efficiency with the need to protect the rights of the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant the defendant’s application for these proceedings to be listed together for hearing before the same trial judge, with the proviso that the sequence of the hearing is to be a matter for the trial judge.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Roberts v Manning (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 525
Hearing dates:	31 July 2020
Date of orders:	31 July 2020
Decision date:	07 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	Grant the defendant’s application for these proceedings to be listed together for hearing before the same trial judge, with the proviso that the sequence of the hearing is to be a matter for the trial judge.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – plaintiff brings two actions for defamation against the same defendants – defendants’ application for the hearings to be heard together – order for proceedings to listed together for hearing before the same trial judge, with the proviso that the sequence of the hearing is to be a matter for the trial judge
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56-62 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 23, 38 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 28.5
Cases Cited:	Douglas v McLernon (No 4) [2016] WASC 320 Ghose v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd [2010] NSWSC 110 Herron v HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1495 Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699 Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd v Barclay [2020] FCA 857 Roberts v Manning Community News Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] NSWDC 301
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Plaintiff: Lennard Bruce Roberts First Defendant: The Manning Community News Pty Ltd (ACN:605502378) Second Defendant: Grace Dianne Morrissey
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Ms C Amato Defendants: Mr R Potter Solicitors: Plaintiff: Alliance Unity Law Defendants: Wotton + Kearney
File Number(s):	2019/00226972 2019/00385013
Publication restriction:	None