Whitehall v Oxborough

Case [2018] NSWDC 315


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Whitehall v Oxborough [2018] NSWDC 315
Hearing dates: 4 October 2018
Date of orders: 04 October 2018
Decision date: 04 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) On the application of the defendant, these proceedings are stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 1 November 2018.
(2) Stand over the notice to produce issued by the defendant and the capacity and form challenges to the imputations to 1 November 2018.
(3) Costs reserved.

Catchwords: TORT – defamation – application by defendant for form and capacity rulings on imputations – defendant issues notice to produce for court documents in Supreme Court proceedings where the defendant is a party – interim non-publication orders made in the Supreme Court pending an urgent hearing – whether interim orders prevent the hearing of the argument on imputations and/or the production of documents under the notice to produce – applications adjourned pending further Supreme Court orders
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.2
Cases Cited: Al Muderis v Duncan (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 925
Bennette v Cohen (2005) 64 NSWLR 81
Bennette v Cohen (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-897
Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60
Calabro v Zappia (2010) 11 DCLR (NSW) 12
Capilano Honey Ltd v Mulvany (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 767
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Whitehall [2018] NSWSC 1345
Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 155
Fastbet Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2018] FCA 1418
Huang v Zhi [2018] VCC 529
Inserve Australia Ltd v Kinane [2018] QCA 116
Marshall v Smith [2013] WASC 432
Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2018] QSC 192
Mowen v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 183
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Shane Dowling (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 784
Sali v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2013] VSC 719
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Plaintiff: Nathaniel John Whitehall
Defendant: Terry Oxborough
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr N J Whitehall (in person)
Defendant: Mr B Goldsmith (solicitor)

  Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mr N J Whitehall (in person)
Defendant: Goldsmiths Lawyers
File Number(s): 2018/159739
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Background

  1. The plaintiff commenced proceedings for defamation arising out of three publications made by the defendant, the first on 19 May 2017 and the other two subsequent publications on 27 August 2017.

  2. The proceedings were first listed for directions on 14 June 2018, when the defendant appeared in person. On the second directions hearing date on 23 August 2018, Mr Goldsmith appeared for the defendant. Mr Goldsmith gave notice of objections to the form and capacity of the imputations and sought a date for argument (the plaintiff, who is self-represented, was not present on that day and Mr Goldsmith undertook to inform him). The argument, which required rulings by way of a separate trial pursuant to r 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), was accordingly listed on 4 October 2018.

  3. The plaintiff also commenced proceedings against the Civil…

Continue reading Whitehall v Oxborough

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Whitehall v Oxborough [2018] NSWDC 315
Case
[2018] NSWDC 315
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Oxborough, brought a defamation action against the respondent, Whitehall, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Whitehall sought rulings on the form and capacity of imputations alleged in the statement of claim, and to produce documents from the Supreme Court proceedings for examination. The application was brought in the District Court of Queensland, and interim non-publication orders were in place pending an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court.

The legal issues that the District Court had to decide were whether the interim non-publication orders in the Supreme Court proceedings prevented the hearing of the argument on the imputations and/or the production of documents under the notice to produce. The court had to consider the effect of the non-publication orders on the proceedings in the District Court and whether it was appropriate to proceed with the application in light of the Supreme Court proceedings.

The court found that the non-publication orders in the Supreme Court proceedings did not prevent the hearing of the argument on the imputations and/or the production of documents under the notice to produce. However, the court considered it appropriate to stand over the proceedings pending further orders in the Supreme Court. The court adjourned the applications to the Defamation List on 1 November 2018, and reserved costs.

The court made an order that the proceedings were stood over to the Defamation List on 1 November 2018. The court also stood over the notice to produce issued by the defendant and the capacity and form challenges to the imputations to 1 November 2018. The court reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) On the application of the defendant, these proceedings are stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 1 November 2018.

(2) Stand over the notice to produce issued by the defendant and the capacity and form challenges to the imputations to 1 November 2018.

(3) Costs reserved.

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.