Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FCA 1375 File number: NSD 129 of 2022
Judgment of: WIGNEy J
Date of judgment: 15 November 2022
Date of publication of reasons: 6 December 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applicant's interlocutory application for defamatory meaning to be determined separately, interrogatories to be ordered and subpoenas to be issued to respondent's three witnesses – where application partly arose by reason of amended defence – where written evidence elicited from interrogatories would not add to written evidence from subpoenas, or be irrelevant or unnecessary – where utility of evidence from undiscovered tapes speculative – whether expedient to deal with defamatory meaning on first day of trial – leave granted to issue subpoenas to produce documents – leave granted to adduce hurt to feelings evidence by affidavit or, if witnesses are to be cross-examined, by viva voce – counsel at risk of being in the doghouse
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 21.01, 30.01
Cases cited: Austal Ships Pty Ltd v Incat Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2010) 272 ALR 177; [2010] FCA 795 Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1332 Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 509 Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 2) [2019] FCA 393 WA Pines Pty Ltd v Bannerman (1980) 41 FLR 175
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
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