Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Roozendaal v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Limited [2015] FCA 764 Citation: Roozendaal v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Limited [2015] FCA 764
Parties: ERIC ROOZENDAAL v FAIRFAX DIGITAL AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND PTY LIMITED and FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 003 357 720)
File number: NSD 483 of 2015
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 28 July 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by respondents for a trial by jury – whether trial by Judge alone is the normal mode of trial in the Federal Court – whether the respondents established a sufficient reason to depart from the normal mode of trial – where the respondents were alleged to have published material that was defamatory of the applicant – where material published in places including the Australian Capital Territory where defamation actions are not normally tried by jury – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 39, 40. Held: Application dismissed.
Legislation: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 123 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 21, 22 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 39, 40 High Court Procedure Act 1903 (Cth) ss 12, 13 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) s 4 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 (Cth) s 16 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 85 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 53B
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate