Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Tucker v McKee [2023] FCA 1335 File number(s): VID 274 of 2020
Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J
Date of judgment: 3 November 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — where Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) prescribes a one-year period from the date of publication within which a defamation action is to be brought – where the applicant sought to commence his defamation action outside of the prescribed time and sought leave to extend time under s 23B of the Act – where conceded by the respondents that it was not reasonable for the applicant to seek to commence his action prior to 9 November 2019 – where the applicant did not commence his proceeding until 24 April 2020 – whether the Court should exercise its discretion to allow an extension of time within which to commence the proceeding until 24 April 2020 – the applicant did not sufficiently explain delay in commencing the proceeding – where the applicant's reason for such a delay is a relevant consideration in the exercise of the discretion – where positive exercise of discretion would result in respondents losing a defence – application to extend time dismissed.
Legislation: Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth), s 6 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 131 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79 Crown Proceedings Act 1958 (Vic), s 23(1)(b) Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 11 Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Act 2020 (Vic), s 42 Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), ss 5(1AAA), 23B, 23D
Cases cited: Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1663 Barrett v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 304; 96 NSWLR 478 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; 186 CLR 541 Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2010] NSWSC 709; 77 NSWLR 136 Casley v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2013] VSC 251 Casley v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2013] VSCA 182; 39 VR 526 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; 235 CLR 125 Johnston v Holland (No 2) [2017] VSC 597 King v Comiskey Management Services Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 229 Landrey v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 27 Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd (Limitation Extension) [2023] FCA 385 Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50; Qd R 537 Paule v McKay (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 190; 18 ACTLR 135 Tucker v McKee [2022] FCAFC 98; 292 FCR 666 Tucker v State of Victoria [2021] VSCA 120 Wookey v Quigley (No 2) [2010] WASC 209 Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] PNLR 74 Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436
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