John Casley v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

[2014] HCASL 113

JOHN CASLEY

v

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[2014] HCASL 113
M123/2013

1. On 27 March 2013, the applicant brought defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleging that he had been defamed on one of the respondent's radio talkback segments on 2 July 2010 ("the broadcast").  Following the broadcast, the applicant had lodged a complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority ("ACMA").  On 6 July 2011, the applicant received ACMA's final report in relation to the applicant's complaint, which concluded that there had been no breach of the respondent's Code of Practice.  On 7 May 2012, ACMA informed the applicant that there was no right to have ACMA review its decision and no provision for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  

2. Under s 5(1AAA) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ("the Act"), a one year limitation period applied to the commencement of defamation proceedings. The applicant sought an extension of time, pursuant to s 23B(2) of the Act, in which to commence defamation proceedings against the respondent.

3. On 15 May 2013, the Supreme Court (Beach J) dismissed the application for an extension of time.  Beach J held that the ACMA complaint process was not an alternative to defamation litigation and that the remedies sought by the applicant always required the bringing of proceedings in court.  His Honour was not satisfied that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to have commenced defamation proceedings within one year of the date of the broadcast.

4. On 15 August 2013, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hansen JA and Robson AJA) refused the applicant leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeal held that Beach J's findings were correct and that the length of any extension was a matter of discretion. 

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court on the grounds that the Court of Appeal erred in its construction and application of s 23B(2) of the Act. There is no reason to doubt the Court of Appeal's conclusions regarding the applicable statutory test and the question as to discretion does not arise. Any appeal would have insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. The application for special leave should be refused.

S.M. Kiefel
19 June 2014 P.A. Keane

1. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.