2025/00390041
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 27/11/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 161.6 KB) |
| 9/10/2025 | Appellant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 256.0 KB) |
| 11/11/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 2.0 MB) |
| 27/11/2025 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 252.3 KB) |
DEFAMATION – on the fifth day of a defamation trial (in which a jury had been validly requisitioned by the plaintiff) following the respondents' closing address but before the plaintiff's closing address, the plaintiff fell ill and was taken to hospital, with the jury discharged. The respondents successfully applied for the trial to proceed without a jury following the filing of evidence and submissions by the parties. It is to be steadily borne in mind that the decision to decline to order a fourth jury trial was in circumstances where two of three previous jury trials were terminated by reason of health episodes of the applicant. The applicant seeks leave in respect of three issues: (i) whether the primary judge erred in making an order under s 21 (1A) of the Defamation Act to revoke the plaintiff's jury election; (ii) whether a new trial should be ordered; and (iii) if a new trial is ordered, whether it should be with a jury. The respondents argue that (i) although the primary judge identified an incorrect power in a part of her judgment, it does not matter because she correctly determined the application in accordance with the discretionary power under s 21 (1) of the Defamation Act; and (ii) the applicant is "simply incorrect" that the health of the applicant did not form part of the application.
Last updated: