Teh v Woodworth

The matter of Teh v Woodworth involved a defamation claim brought against the defendants, who had opposed a development application by a neighbour. The plaintiff sought an extension of time to commence proceedings under sections 14B and 56A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) for two publications made in 2019 and 2020. The plaintiff's names were redacted by the Council, and they claimed a further publication by the Council in 2022. The primary issue before the court was whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced action within one year of publication, and whether the proceedings should be struck out or an asserted 2022 publication permitted. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the concerns notice was invalid due to the failure to refer to the 2022 publication or provide particulars of serious harm.

The court found that the plaintiff was not prevented from bringing the action within the limitation period due to the redaction of their names and rejected the argument that the plaintiff was unaware of the defamatory matter until June 2022. The court held that the plaintiff's claims for defamation for other publications from 21 July 2021 onwards were struck out due to failure to comply with sections 10A, 12A, and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The claim for slander was also dismissed as an abuse of process. The court concluded that the concerns notice was invalid because it did not refer to the 2022 publication or provide particulars of serious harm. The plaintiff's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings was refused, and the proceedings were struck out and dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings in relation to the publications dated 17 August 2019 and 20 February 2020 was refused. The plaintiff's claim for defamation for other publications for the period 21 July 2021 onwards, including the publication alleged to have been made on 16 June 2022, was struck out by reason of failure to comply with sections 10A, 12A, and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The plaintiff's claim for slander was struck out as an abuse of process. The proceedings were struck out and dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.