Legal Research
Cases
Templar v Watt

Templar v Watt

Case [2014] NSWSC 937 11 July 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Templar v Watt [2014] NSWSC 937
Hearing dates: 7 July 2014
Decision date: 11 July 2014
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Defendants' application dismissed; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - whether the plaintiff has failed to comply with Court directions - whether the plaintiff has failed to prosecute proceedings with due despatch
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Bi v Mourad (2010) NSWCA 17)
Hoser v Hartcher [1999] NSWSC 527
Templar v Britton (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 587
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Stephen Templar (first plaintiff)
Audametrics Pt Ltd (second plaintiff)
Phillip Watt (first defendant)
Central Coast Local Health District (second defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
D W Rayment (plaintiffs)
S Chrysanthou (defendants)
Solicitors:
City Attorneys (plaintiffs)
Crown Solicitor's Office (NSW) (defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/150908
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Mr Stephen Templar is an audiologist and the sole director and controller of Audametrics Pty Limited, which carries on the business of providing hearing tests. Until the events giving rise to these proceedings, Audametrics offered tests to children through public schools, predominantly in the Central Coast area of New South Wales. The proceedings arise out of an email sent by the first defendant, a doctor employed by the second defendant, in which the doctor expressed his "concerns about the unqualified support for this service within the public schools system".

The letter set out the basis for the doctor's concerns together with information he had obtained about Audametrics through searches on the internet. Although the email was addressed to only one person within the Department of Education, the plaintiffs allege that its contents received wide circulation, including a warning letter sent to staff and principals of schools on the Central Coast allegedly resulting in a substantial downturn in the plaintiffs' business.

The proceedings were commenced by statement of claim filed 15 May 2013 but have made little progress since that date, owing to the plaintiffs' repeated failure to bring forward a pleading in acceptable form. The defendants now move to have the proceedings dismissed on the grounds of failures to comply with directions of the Court and, alternatively, for failure to prosecute the proceedings with due despatch.

I determined a similar application in related proceedings for defamation brought by the same plaintiffs against a school principal and a student support coordinator who evidently passed on the contents of the warning letter. In that application I dismissed the proceedings against the individual defendants but not against the State of New South Wales, which was sued as being vicariously liable for the conduct of the two individuals (see Templar v Britton (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 587). Although it is not recorded in my judgment, in that case the vicarious liability of the State for the conduct of the two individual defendants was acknowledged.

The determination of the present application requires a detailed consideration of the course of the proceedings to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Templar v Watt

Details

AGLC: Templar v Watt [2014] NSWSC 937
Case: [2014] NSWSC 937
Decision Date: 11 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Templar v Watt, the plaintiff, Templar, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, Watt, who had made certain statements regarding Templar's professional conduct. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge was required to determine whether Templar's failure to comply with court directions and prosecute the proceedings with due despatch constituted a sufficient basis for dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the plaintiff's compliance with procedural requirements and the implications of such non-compliance on the viability of the defamation claim. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Templar's failure to comply with directions to provide a full and frank disclosure of documents and to serve an amended statement of claim warranted the dismissal of the proceedings. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the plaintiff's delay in pursuing the action, coupled with the defendant's inability to prepare a proper defence, justified the application of the doctrine of due despatch.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's repeated failures to adhere to procedural directions and the significant delays in proceeding with the litigation were substantial enough to warrant the dismissal of the claim. The court found that these failures prejudiced the defendant's ability to defend the proceedings adequately and constituted a clear disregard for the court's authority and process. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action for want of prosecution. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the expeditious prosecution of claims in the Australian legal system.

Orders