Legal Research
Cases
Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd

Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd

Case [2009] NSWSC 1235 16 November 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1235

HEARING DATE(S): 06/11/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 November 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Order extending time for service of originating process.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - time for service of originating process - application for extension - several earlier extensions - whether plaintiffs have shown good reason for further extension - extension granted

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 588FF(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rules 1.2, 6.2(4)(a), 12.11(1)(e)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance Pty Ltd v Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 104
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Limited; Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Limited [2007] NSWSC 1320
Tolcher v Gordon [2005] NSWCA 135; (2005) 53 ACSR 442
Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1318
Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Limited [2009] NSWSC 321; (2009) 71 ACSR 577

PARTIES: Paul Gerard Weston in his capacity as special purpose liquidator of One.Tel Limited - Plaintiff
Publishing and Broadcasting Limited - First Defendant
Consolidated Press Holdings Limited - Second Defendant
Robbdoc Pty Limited - Third Defendant
Toranaga Pty Limited - Fourth Defendant
Cavalane Holdings Pty Limited - Fifth Defendant
News Limited - Sixth Defendant
Leteno Pty Limited - Seventh Defendant
James Douglas Packer - Eighth Defendant
Peter Wilson Yates - Ninth Defendant
Lachlan Keith Murdoch - Tenth Defendant
Peter John Macourt - Eleventh Defendant
Kevin Beck - Twelfth Defendant
Mark Alan Silbermann - Thirteenth Defendant
Peter David Howell-Davies - Fourteenth Defendant
Pirjo Hannele Kekalainen-Torvinen - Fifteenth Defendant
Persons named in Schedule A trading as Freehills who are named in Schedule A to the Statement of Claim filed on 25 May 2007 - Sixteenth Defendant
Persons named in Schedule B trading as Ernst & Young who are named in Schedule B to the Statement of Claim filed on 25 May 2007
Persons named in Schedule C trading as Ferrier Hodgson who are named in Schedule C to the Statement of Claim filed on 25 May 2007 - Eighteenth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2902/07

COUNSEL: Mr N A Cotman SC/Mr R D Glasson - Plaintiff

SOLICITORS: O'Neill Partners - Commercial Lawyers - Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2009

2902/07 PAUL GERARD WESTON v PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 These proceedings were commenced by statement of claim filed on 25 May 2007.

2 The plaintiffs named in the statement of claim are Paul Gerard Weston, special purpose liquidator of One.Tel Limited, and One.Tel Limited itself. The relief sought is declaratory relief, an order for the payment of money pursuant to s 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and damages. There are eighteen defendants.

3 Under rule 6.2(4)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, originating process in the Supreme Court is valid for service for six months after the date on which it is filed. Under rule 1.12, the court may extend any…

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 Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd

Details

AGLC: Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1235
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1235
Decision Date: 16 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerns a claim for damages related to a breach of contract and defamation. The plaintiff, Mr. Weston, alleged that the defendant, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, had breached a contractual agreement and defamed him through various publications. The defendant sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to serve the originating process within the required time frame and had not demonstrated sufficient cause for the delays.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to serve the originating process was justified, particularly given that several extensions had already been granted. The central issue was whether the plaintiff had shown good reason for the further extension of time and if the delay had prejudiced the defendant. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, the principles governing extensions of time, and the impact of the delay on the defendant.

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated good reason for the delay in serving the originating process, despite several previous extensions. The reasons provided included the plaintiff's attempts to resolve the matter without litigation and the complexity of the case, which required additional time to properly prepare and serve the necessary documents. The court acknowledged that the defendant had not been significantly prejudiced by the delay, as the case was still in its early stages, and the defendant had been aware of the proceedings for some time. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for an extension of time.

The court ordered that the plaintiff have until a specified date to serve the originating process on the defendant. The extension was granted on the condition that no further extensions would be considered unless exceptional circumstances arose. This decision ensured that the plaintiff could proceed with the litigation while also maintaining the integrity of the legal process by preventing unreasonable delays.

Orders