Stapleton v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stapleton v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1418

File number: NSD 1749 of 2018
Judge: FLICK J
Date of judgment: 30 August 2019
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim for defamation – application for security for costs – application granted 
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) s 56

Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) r 19.01
Cases cited:

Botsman v Bolitho [2018] VSCA 111

East Grace Corporation v Xing (No 1) [2005] FCA 219

James v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No. 1) (1985) 9 FCR 442

Madgwick v Kelly [2013] FCAFC 6, (2013) 212 FCR 1

PS Chellaram & Co Ltd v China Ocean Shipping Co (1991) 65 ALJR 642
Date of hearing: 21 and 29 August 2019
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Fitzpatrick
Solicitor for the Applicant: Harper James Law Group
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms L E Barnett
Solicitor for the Respondents: Banki Haddock Fiora

ORDERS

NSD 1749 of 2018
BETWEEN:

MARK STAPLETON

Applicant
AND:

FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
(ACN 003 357 720)

First Respondent

JACOB SAULWICK

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

FLICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 AUGUST 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and/or r 19.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Applicant is to give security for the Respondents’ costs up to the hearing in the amount of $100,000.

2.The security ordered pursuant to Order 1 is to be paid by the Applicant into Court pursuant to r 2.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 4.00pm on 12 September 2019.

3.Subject to Order 4, pursuant to r 19.01(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the proceedings be stayed until security is given pursuant to Order 1.

4.If the Applicant has failed to comply with Orders 1 and 2 above by 1 October 2019, an application may be made, returnable at 9.30am on 9 October 2019, for an order that the proceeding be dismissed pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and/or r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

5.In the event the Applicant gives the security as required by Orders 1 and 2 above, the Respondents have liberty to apply for further security for costs in relation to the costs of the hearing.  

6.The Applicant is to pay the Respondents’ costs of and incidental to this Application for security.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FLICK J:

  1. On 13 September 2019, Mr Mark Stapleton commenced a proceeding in this Court by filing an Originating Application and a Statement of Claim.

  2. Mr Stapleton sought relief in respect to a series of publications on 30 August 2018.  He claimed that the publications were…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stapleton v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] FCA 1418
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia was presented with an application for security for costs in the case of Stapleton v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd. The applicant, Stapleton, sought to commence defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media, the publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. The application for security for costs was made under section 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rule 19.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), with Stapleton required to provide an undertaking to cover the respondents' anticipated legal costs up to the hearing of the defamation claim. The central legal issues in this case revolved around the court's discretion in granting security for costs, the appropriate amount of security required, and the implications of Stapleton's ability to meet the security requirement. The court considered whether the applicant's financial circumstances justified the imposition of such a security requirement, as well as the potential prejudice to the respondent if the defamation claim were to proceed without adequate financial backing.

The court ruled in favour of the respondent, Fairfax Media, and granted the application for security for costs. The judge determined that Stapleton should provide security for the respondents' costs up to the hearing in the amount of $100,000. The court held that Stapleton's financial position, as evidenced by the documents presented, did not sufficiently demonstrate that they would be able to meet the anticipated legal costs without imposing a significant financial burden. The court also considered the potential prejudice that could result if the defamation claim were to proceed, and determined that it would be unjust for Fairfax Media to bear the risk of Stapleton's inability to meet the costs. As a result, the court ordered that the proceedings be stayed until security was given, and that failure to comply with the security requirement could result in the dismissal of the proceeding. Furthermore, the court granted the respondents the liberty to apply for further security for costs in relation to the costs of the hearing, should the defamation claim proceed. Lastly, the court ordered Stapleton to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application for security for costs.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of demonstrating financial viability when pursuing defamation claims, and the potential consequences of failing to meet security for costs requirements. The court's ruling serves as a reminder to litigants of the need to carefully consider the financial implications of litigation and to ensure that they have the means to meet the costs associated with the proceedings. The court's orders in this case provide a clear framework for the parties to follow, and ensure that the interests of both the applicant and the respondent are protected throughout the litigation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and/or r 19.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Applicant is to give security for the Respondents’ costs up to the hearing in the amount of $100,000.

2. The security ordered pursuant to Order 1 is to be paid by the Applicant into Court pursuant to r 2.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by 4.00pm on 12 September 2019.

3. Subject to Order 4, pursuant to r 19.01(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the proceedings be stayed until security is given pursuant to Order 1.

4. If the Applicant has failed to comply with Orders 1 and 2 above by 1 October 2019, an application may be made, returnable at 9.30am on 9 October 2019, for an order that the proceeding be dismissed pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and/or r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

5. In the event the Applicant gives the security as required by Orders 1 and 2 above, the Respondents have liberty to apply for further security for costs in relation to the costs of the hearing.

6. The Applicant is to pay the Respondents’ costs of and incidental to this Application for security.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.