Woolf v Brandt
Case
•
[2023] NSWDC 460
•02 November 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWDC 460
[2023] NSWDC 460
02 November 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Woolf brought a claim against Brandt for defamation, relating to two Facebook posts. The claim was initially struck out in December 2022 due to defects in the concerns notice procedure for the second publication. A fresh concerns notice was served in March 2023, and Woolf recommenced the claim for the second publication in August 2023. Brandt applied to have the first claim struck out as an abuse of process. Woolf argued that an extension of time was required under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) and that leave to commence was required under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The court considered whether the delay in recommencing the claim was just and reasonable and whether the second statement of claim was an abuse of process.
The court found that the delay in recommencing the claim was not just and reasonable, and the second statement of claim was an abuse of process. The court held that the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) did not provide a basis for an extension of time, and the second statement of claim was an abuse of process. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct in recommencing the claim after it had been struck out was an abuse of the court’s process. The court held that the plaintiff had acted unreasonably in delaying the recommencement of the claim and that the delay had caused significant prejudice to the defendant.
Accordingly, the court granted Brandt’s application to have the proceedings struck out. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct in recommencing the claim after it had been struck out was an abuse of the court’s process and that the delay in recommencing the claim was not just and reasonable. The court held that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to an abuse of process and that the proceedings should be struck out and dismissed. The court also ordered that Woolf pay Brandt’s costs of the proceedings, with liberty to apply on all costs issues, including the bringing of an application for costs to be determined by a gross sum costs order. The exhibits were retained until further order.
The court found that the delay in recommencing the claim was not just and reasonable, and the second statement of claim was an abuse of process. The court held that the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) did not provide a basis for an extension of time, and the second statement of claim was an abuse of process. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct in recommencing the claim after it had been struck out was an abuse of the court’s process. The court held that the plaintiff had acted unreasonably in delaying the recommencement of the claim and that the delay had caused significant prejudice to the defendant.
Accordingly, the court granted Brandt’s application to have the proceedings struck out. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct in recommencing the claim after it had been struck out was an abuse of the court’s process and that the delay in recommencing the claim was not just and reasonable. The court held that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to an abuse of process and that the proceedings should be struck out and dismissed. The court also ordered that Woolf pay Brandt’s costs of the proceedings, with liberty to apply on all costs issues, including the bringing of an application for costs to be determined by a gross sum costs order. The exhibits were retained until further order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Limitation Periods
-
Abuse of Process
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWDC 460
Most Recent Citation
Khan v Hassan (Ruling No 3) [2023] VCC 2243
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Khan v Hassan (Ruling No 3)
[2023] VCC 2243
Khan v Hassan (Ruling No 3)
[2023] VCC 2243
Cases Cited
31
Statutory Material Cited
5
Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[2010] NSWSC 709