District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Scott v Bodley [2022] NSWDC 459 Hearing dates: 6 October 2022 Date of orders: 10 October 2022 Decision date: 10 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: Order:
(1) Defendant’s application for the serious harm element to be determined before the trial for the proceedings commences is granted; plaintiff’s application to defer this to the trial refused.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.
Catchwords: TORT - defamation - application pursuant to s 10A(5) Defamation Act 2005 for the serious harm element of the plaintiff’s claim to be determined before the trial - whether separate determination of issues should be seen as an “exceptional course” - whether there was a need to identify a clearly severable question - whether there was a possibility of inconsistent credit and quantum issues - whether the nature and extent of the evidence was suitable for a separate hearing - s 10A(6) factors of costs, resources and overlap - whether special circumstances warranted the refusal of the application - whether the defendant should be required to file a defence prior to this issue being determined - defendant’s application for the serious harm element of the plaintiff’s claim to be determined separately before trial granted
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56 and 62(2)
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 10A(5)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 28.2
Cases Cited: Alexander-Theodotu v Kounis [2019] EWHC 956
Ames v The Spamhaus Project Ltd [2015] EWHC 127 (QB)
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1980) 2 NSWLR 225
Bindel v PinkNews Media Group [2021] EWHC 1868 (QB)
Brown v Bower and another [2017] EWHC 1388 (QB)
Harcombe v Associated Newspapers and another; Kendrick v Associated Newspapers and another [2022] EWHC 543 (QB)
Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1688 (QB)
J Annan v FSS Trustee Corporation [2017] NSWSC 1453
Mohamed Ali Harrath v Stand For Peace Ltd [2016] EWHC 665 (QB)
Mueen-Udin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 3026 (QB)
Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249
Parris v Ajayi and others [2021] EWHC 285 (QB)
Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198
Reid v Hartcher [2017] NSWSC 1274
Sims v Jooste (No 2) [2016] WASCA 83
Spirits International BV v Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojusplodoimport [2011] FCAFC 69
Todd Hadley Pty Limited v Lake Maintenance (NSW) Pty Limited [2019] NSWCA 262
Wilks v Qu (Ruling 2) [2022] VCC 1503
Texts Cited: “The Modernisation of Access to Justice in Times of Austerity”, The Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President of Tribunals
Shane Bazzi, “Peter Dutton suing me for defamation almost ruined me – and it could happen to anyone”, the Guardian, 8 October 2022
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Plaintiff: Dale Scott
Defendant: Bettina BodleyRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr N Olson (Plaintiff)
Mr T Senior (Defendant)
Rose litigation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Somerville Laundry Lomax…
Continue reading Scott v Bodley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Scott v Bodley [2022] NSWDC 459
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 459
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the application for a separate determination of the serious harm element should be seen as an exceptional course and whether there was a need to identify a clearly severable question. The court also considered whether there was a possibility of inconsistent credit and quantum issues, whether the nature and extent of the evidence was suitable for a separate hearing, and the factors of costs, resources, and overlap under s 10A(6) of the Defamation Act 2005. Additionally, the court assessed whether special circumstances warranted the refusal of the application and whether the defendant should be required to file a defence prior to the issue being determined.
The court found that the application for the serious harm element of the plaintiff’s claim to be determined separately before trial should be granted. The court held that there was no need for a clearly severable question to be identified and that there was no risk of inconsistent credit or quantum issues. The court also found that the nature and extent of the evidence was suitable for a separate hearing, and that the factors of costs, resources, and overlap supported the application. The court concluded that special circumstances did not warrant the refusal of the application and that the defendant did not need to file a defence prior to the issue being determined.
The court ordered that the defendant’s application for the serious harm element to be determined before the trial for the proceedings commenced was granted, and that the plaintiff’s application to defer this to the trial was refused. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order:
(1) Defendant’s application for the serious harm element to be determined before the trial for the proceedings commences is granted; plaintiff’s application to defer this to the trial refused.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.
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.