Woolf v Brandt (No 2)

The defendant, Brandt, brought an application for summary dismissal against the plaintiff, Woolf, in relation to a defamation claim based on two Facebook posts made by Brandt after their relationship ended. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Brandt argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process, asserting that Woolf brought the action to vindicate their reputation or for an ancillary dominant improper purpose, such as perpetuating an ongoing vendetta, rather than solely for defamation. Brandt also questioned whether the strength of the evidence of justification warranted summary dismissal and raised concerns about proportionality and Woolf's failure to inform the court that the limitation period had expired.

The court examined whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, considering whether they were brought for an improper purpose. It assessed the evidence and submissions provided by both parties, including the fact that one of the Facebook posts had been online for 10 days and downloaded three times. The court found that the proceedings were indeed an abuse of process due to the improper purpose for which they were brought. Additionally, the court determined that Woolf breached the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 12.11 by not informing the court that the limitation period had expired. The court also found that Brandt was estopped from bringing this application because it should have been brought concurrently with his earlier application to strike out the cause of action on different grounds.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for defamation and the proceedings, striking out the claim for the publication made on 11 May 2021. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings unless otherwise ordered previously. The affidavits and submissions relied upon by the parties were to remain with the file until further order. The court did not allow Woolf to ask the court to revisit the striking out of the second matter complained of, reinforcing its decision that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.