District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Stanizzo v Sassu [2014] NSWDC 90 Hearing dates: 4 July 2014 Decision date: 08 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants dismissed.
(2) Costs of the proceedings against the first to fourth defendants reserved, with liberty to apply.
(3) The plaintiff and fifth defendant have leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable.
Catchwords: TORT - defamation - inadequacy of pleading of publication where the matter complained of is a series of conversations between litigants and witnesses presumed to have occurred by "working backwards" from their affidavits in court proceedings - whether plaintiff entitled to commence proceedings and bring an application at any time for discovery and interrogatories to determine the relevant details and content of each such publication - whether failure to seek such orders at the commencement of proceedings was fatal - whether any such application would be a "fishing expedition" by the plaintiff - whether publications made on an occasion protected by absolute privilege at common law and/or pursuant to s 27(2) Defamation Act 2005 - whether such conversations protected by legal professional privilege and/or common interest privilege Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56 - 62
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 5.3, 15.19, 21.2Cases Cited: Ahmed v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 11
Ascherman v Natanson 23 Cal App 3d 861, 100 Cal Rptr 656 (1972)
Astral Land Pty Ltd v Golden Commercial Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 274
Calabro v Zappia [2010] NSWDC 127
Clark v Davey [2002] EWHC 2342
Cristovao v Butcher Paull and Calder and Ors [2006] WASCA 235
Cumberland v Clark (1996) 39 NSWLR 514
Cumming v 2KY Broadcasters Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 246
Cunliffe v Woods [2012] VSC 254
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543
Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1101
Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1850
Emanuele v Headley (Supreme Court of the ACT, Higgins J, 7 March 1997)
In the Estate of Sini: Stanizzo v Henniker [2013] NSWSC 1459
Kaiser v George Laurens (NSW) Pty Ltd [1982] 1 NSWLR 294
Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237
Martin v Watson [1996] AC 74
McCabe v Joynt [1901] 2 Ir R 115
Moevao v Department of Labour [1980] 1 NZLR 4
More v Weaver [1928] 2 KB 520
Network Ten Limited v Capital Holdings Limited (1995) 36 NSWLR 275
Page v McGovern [2008] TasSC 13
Paterson v Hesse [1914] 34 NZLR 177
R v Beydoun (1990) 22 NSWLR 256
Re Neenan [2011] AATA 372
Roberts-Smith v Crawshaw [2014] WASC 12
Russell v Stubbs Ltd [1913] 2 KB 200
State of South Australia v Milisits [2013] SASC 189
Thompson v Turbott [1963] NZLR 71
Trantum v McDowell [2007] NSWCA…
Continue reading Stanizzo v Sassu
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stanizzo v Sassu [2014] NSWDC 90
- Case
- [2014] NSWDC 90
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Stanizzo v Sassu, the plaintiff sought to bring defamation proceedings against multiple defendants, who were involved in a complex litigation process with the plaintiff. The core issue was the insufficiency of the plaintiff's pleading regarding the defamatory publications, which were alleged to be a series of conversations among the litigants and witnesses. The court had to determine if the plaintiff could initiate proceedings and subsequently apply for discovery and interrogatories to ascertain the specifics of each publication. A critical aspect was whether the plaintiff's failure to request such orders at the outset was fatal to their case. Furthermore, the court considered whether any such application by the plaintiff would amount to a fishing expedition. Additionally, the court examined whether the alleged publications were protected by absolute privilege at common law or under section 27(2) of the Defamation Act 2005, as well as whether they were covered by legal professional privilege or common interest privilege.
The court found that the plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants was dismissed due to the inadequacy of the pleadings. The plaintiff had not adequately identified the defamatory publications, which were critical to the defamation claim. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to seek discovery and interrogatories at the outset of the proceedings was not necessarily fatal but that any subsequent application needed to be justified and not a fishing expedition. The court also found that the conversations in question were protected by absolute privilege, either at common law or under the statute, and potentially by legal professional privilege or common interest privilege, which further undermined the plaintiff's defamation claim.
The court concluded that the plaintiff's defamation claim against the first to fourth defendants should be dismissed. The costs of the proceedings against these defendants were reserved, with the plaintiff having the liberty to apply for costs. The plaintiff and the fifth defendant were granted leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleading in defamation cases and the potential barriers to discovery in such complex litigation scenarios.
The court found that the plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants was dismissed due to the inadequacy of the pleadings. The plaintiff had not adequately identified the defamatory publications, which were critical to the defamation claim. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to seek discovery and interrogatories at the outset of the proceedings was not necessarily fatal but that any subsequent application needed to be justified and not a fishing expedition. The court also found that the conversations in question were protected by absolute privilege, either at common law or under the statute, and potentially by legal professional privilege or common interest privilege, which further undermined the plaintiff's defamation claim.
The court concluded that the plaintiff's defamation claim against the first to fourth defendants should be dismissed. The costs of the proceedings against these defendants were reserved, with the plaintiff having the liberty to apply for costs. The plaintiff and the fifth defendant were granted leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleading in defamation cases and the potential barriers to discovery in such complex litigation scenarios.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Plaintiff's claim against the first to fourth defendants dismissed.
(2) Costs of the proceedings against the first to fourth defendants reserved, with liberty to apply.
(3) The plaintiff and fifth defendant have leave to bring in short minutes of order for a timetable.
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.