District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Slaven v Prime Media Group Limited [2019] NSWDC 502 Hearing dates: 1 and 8 August 2019; submissions to 15 August 2019 Date of orders: 17 September 2019 Decision date: 17 September 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Grant leave to the plaintiff to reopen his case and to tender a video containing the broadcasts of the first and second matters complained of.
(2) Pursuant to r 28.4(2)(c) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the consent orders of 5 April 2019 purporting to provide for a separate trial of identification issues be set aside.
(3) A finding, on an interlocutory basis, that the plaintiff is reasonably identified as the subject of the first matter complained of in these proceedings, namely the defendant’s broadcast dated 7 December 2017.
(4) A finding, on an interlocutory basis, that the plaintiff is reasonably identified as the subject of the first matter complained of in these proceedings, namely the defendant’s broadcast dated 8 December 2017.
(5) Costs reserved with liberty to apply.
(6) The parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order for a further timetable for these proceedings.Catchwords: TORT – defamation – plaintiff brings proceedings in the Supreme Court for two broadcasts in neither of which he is named – defendants seek to challenge identification evidence – consent orders made for the filing of evidence and transfer to the District Court - no orders for challenge to identification evidence refer to UCPR r 28.2 – plaintiff brings application after judgment reserved to set aside the separate trial pursuant to UCPR r 28.4(2)(c) – principles for the ordering of separate trials – form of orders for separate trials and Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Hibbert [2014] NSWCA 13 Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-60
Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 67
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 15.19, 28.2, 28.4, 36.15 and 36.16Cases Cited: Ale v Pauling [2017] NSWSC 1744
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Baltinos v Foreign Language Publications Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 85
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 30
Bourke v Warren (1826) 2 Car & P 307; 172 ER 138
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-675 at 69,226
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Clune [2008] NSWSC 1125
Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Browne (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 86
Duffy v Google Inc (2005) 125 SASC 437
El Chami v Mackie [2019] NSWSC 821
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Pedavoli (2015) 91 NSWLR 485
Frangie bht Frangie v Takchi [2014] NSWDC 58
Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle and Journal Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 651
Hayward v Thompson [1982] QB 47
Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20
Lazarus v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (1985) 1 NSWLR 188
Lee v Wilson and MacKinnon (1934) 51 CLR 276
McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1989)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Slaven v Prime Media Group Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 502
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles for ordering separate trials and the relevant UCPR rules. It noted the importance of ensuring justice in the proceedings and considered the appropriateness of separate trials in this context. The court found that the separate trial orders did not correctly reference the relevant UCPR rule and set aside the consent orders. Additionally, the court made interlocutory findings that the plaintiff was reasonably identified in both broadcasts, allowing the case to proceed with these findings.
The court granted leave to the plaintiff to reopen his case and tender the video containing the broadcasts. It set aside the consent orders for a separate trial of identification issues, finding they did not correctly reference UCPR r 28.4(2)(c). The court made interlocutory findings that the plaintiff was reasonably identified in the broadcasts of 7 and 8 December 2017. Costs were reserved, with liberty to apply, and the parties were directed to bring in Short Minutes of Order for a further timetable.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant leave to the plaintiff to reopen his case and to tender a video containing the broadcasts of the first and second matters complained of.
(2) Pursuant to r 28.4(2)(c) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the consent orders of 5 April 2019 purporting to provide for a separate trial of identification issues be set aside.
(3) A finding, on an interlocutory basis, that the plaintiff is reasonably identified as the subject of the first matter complained of in these proceedings, namely the defendant’s broadcast dated 7 December 2017.
(4) A finding, on an interlocutory basis, that the plaintiff is reasonably identified as the subject of the first matter complained of in these proceedings, namely the defendant’s broadcast dated 8 December 2017.
(5) Costs reserved with liberty to apply.
(6) The parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order for a further timetable for these proceedings.
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.