Stanton v Fell

Case [2014] NSWCA 44


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanton v Fell [2014] NSWCA 44
Hearing dates:7 March 2014
Decision date: 07 March 2014
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Ward JA at [11]
Decision:

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - leave to appeal - less than $100,000 at issue - not sufficient to show arguability of appeal - leave refused
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 25, 30, 33
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101
Cases Cited: Be Financial Pty Ltd v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd [1995] NSWCA 69
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
Kassem v Colonial Mutual [2001] NSWCA 38
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Arthur Peter Stanton (Applicant)
Gary Fell (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
K P Smark SC (Applicant)
P J Hayes (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Access Law Group (Applicant)
Russell Kennedy Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):CA 2013/256516
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9111
Citation:
[2013] NSWSC 1001
Date of Decision:
2013-07-29 00:00:00
Before:
Simpson J
File Number(s):
SC 2012/288471

Judgment

  1. MACFARLAN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Simpson J directing judgment for the defendant in proceedings for damages for defamation brought by Dr Arthur Stanton ([2013] NSWSC 1001).

  1. At the relevant times, Dr Stanton was a specialist vascular surgeon holding an appointment as a Visiting Medical Officer ("VMO") in the Vascular Surgery Unit of the Wollongong Hospital. The two other VMOs in that unit were Dr David Huber and Dr Laurencia Villalba. On 30 June 2011, Mr Nick Boyne, Deputy Chair of the Board of Vascular Surgery (which operates under the auspices of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons) wrote to Dr Huber informing him that the Board had decided not to continue Wollongong Hospital's accreditation as a training post for vascular surgery due to "political issues" within the Vascular Surgery Unit. Dr Stanton claims that he was defamed in an email sent on 19 September 2011 to Dr Huber by Mr Gary Fell, who was the Chair of the Board. The email was in the following terms:

"Dear David,
Re: Hospital Accreditation, Wollongong Hospital
Further to my correspondence date 28 June 2011 stating that Wollongong Hospital will not be accredited for next year. Upon request from your unit, the Board has reconsidered this decision.
Although the Board does feel there are some areas of the unit which are in conflict, we do believe that there have been moves to rectify these issues.
We have been assured by you…

Continue reading Stanton v Fell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stanton v Fell [2014] NSWCA 44
Case
[2014] NSWCA 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Stanton v Fell*, the applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge. The dispute concerned an amount less than $100,000.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant leave to appeal, particularly given the monetary value of the subject matter.

The Court reasoned that the mere fact that less than $100,000 was at issue was not, in itself, sufficient to establish the arguability of an appeal. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a real prospect of success or that there was any other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.