Wecker v Davison

Case [2019] NSWSC 1612


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wecker v Davison [2019] NSWSC 1612
Hearing dates: 8 November 2019
Decision date: 08 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Sackar J
Decision:

Ex tempore reasons given in court. See para 10.

Catchwords:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — Torts — Defamation — Whether proceedings should be struck out as out of time — Whether time should be extended

Legislation Cited:

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Parizian v Seven Network Limited [2013] NSWDC 296

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Paul J Wecker (plaintiff)
Professor C Davison (first defendant)
Blacktown Boys High School (second defendant)
Teachers’ Institute of NSW (third defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
No representation (plaintiff)
T Senior (first defendant)
No appearances (3rd & 4th defendants)

Solicitors:
Self represented (plaintiff)
E Grinston, University of NSW Legal Office (first defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/294837

Judgment – ex tempore

  1. HIS HONOUR: These proceedings are before the Court for the first occasion this morning.

  2. The plaintiff is a litigant in person. He was notified prior to today that application was going to be made effectively to strike the proceedings out as being out of time. He was provided with certain materials including the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). I inquired of Mr Wecker this morning as to whether he was ready to deal with this argument today and he assured me he was.

  3. In my view, for reasons I will briefly come to in a moment, his cause of action is out of time and there is no basis on the facts of this case for an extension of time. I will deal with the precise orders in a moment.

  4. The letter about which Mr Wecker complains is dated 24 June 2010. He was immediately aware of the letter by reason of his response on 25 June 2010, the day after, and later in that year he was communicating about it as well. Importantly, on 25 June he immediately described the letter as a defamation.

  5. Under the law in New South Wales, section 14B of the Limitation Act, a cause of action for defamation is not maintainable if brought after the end of the limitation of one year running from the date of the publication of the matter complained of. There is provision, however, in section 56A of the Act to extend the limitation period. Mr Wecker makes such an application.

  6. Section 56A(1) indicates that a person claiming to have a cause of action may apply. He has certainly done that. However, section 52A(2) states, "The Court must, if satisfied that it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action in relation to the matter complained of within one year from the date of the publication, extend the limitation period in section 14B to a period up to three years running from the date of the publication."

  7. On any view of the facts of this case, it seems to me, first, Mr Wecker was well aware of publication shortly after it occurred and complained about it. It seems to me that on any view of the facts he could not take advantage of section 56A(2) in any event for that reason alone.

  8. Judge Gibson in a decision to which I have been referred, in Parizian v Seven Network Limited [2013] NSWDC 296 at paragraphs 13 and following, helpfully and precisely sets out the principles.

  9. In my view, there is nothing in her Honour's judgment that is erroneous and I would adopt what she says about the law and what she says in particular about these sections. The onus which any person bears under section 56A(2) has been described as a heavy one.

  10. In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that Mr Wecker does not fall within any basis upon which the Court could extend time even if he were able otherwise to satisfy me that these proceedings have some merit and should proceed.

**********

Details
AGLC
Wecker v Davison [2019] NSWSC 1612
Case
[2019] NSWSC 1612
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wecker v Davison was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr Wecker, initiated proceedings against Mr Davison for defamation, alleging that Mr Davison had made defamatory statements about him. The dispute centred on whether the proceedings should be struck out due to the alleged passage of time since the alleged defamation, and whether the court should extend the time limit for bringing the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the proceedings were statute-barred due to the limitation period; and second, whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period under the applicable legislation. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff had met the criteria for an extension of time as per the Limitation Act.

The court, in its judgement, acknowledged that the plaintiff's proceedings were indeed beyond the limitation period for defamation actions. However, the court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. The court emphasised that the plaintiff had acted promptly in initiating the proceedings once the defamation came to his attention. The court exercised its discretion to extend the limitation period, allowing the proceedings to continue.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the proceedings should not be struck out as out of time, and that the time limit should be extended. The court found that the plaintiff's actions were reasonable and justified an extension under the circumstances presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.