INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUP OF AMERICA PTY LTD v JOHN FAIRFAX GROUP PTY LTD [1997] NSWCA 161

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUP OF AMERICA PTY LTD v JOHN FAIRFAX GROUP PTY LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, BEAZLEY and STEIN JJA 24 October 1997

[1997] NSWCA 161

Gleeson CJ, Beazley and Stein JJA We have before us applications by both the plaintiff and the defendant in proceedings in the Defamation List for leave to appeal against a judgment of Levine J, given on 8 August 1997, in relation to a number of issues of particulars. What I am about to announce are the joint reasons of the Court for refusing leave in both applications.

The particulars in question are particulars of a reply by the plaintiff to a defence of the defendant, the defence being to the effect that the matter complained of was a fair protected report of proceedings in public of a court.

In considering the applications for leave we have borne in mind that what was before Levine J was a strike out application. That affected the approach his Honour was required to take to what might be described as the availability of arguments as distinct from their ultimate merit.

We have also taken into account considerations of the practical significance which the decisions that his Honour made in relation to these questions of particulars may have for the ultimate conduct of the proceedings.

Senior counsel on both sides in their oral and written submissions have not only advanced arguments going to the merits of the individual decisions made by Levine J but also have made points as to the practical significance for the conduct of the litigation of the decisions his Honour made. Against that background we have considered the lengthy reasons which his Honour gave for his decisions.

We are unable to find what we regard as substantial fault in the reasons advanced by Levine J for his decisions. We do not consider that there is sufficient prospect of success of either an appeal or a cross appeal to warrant the grant of leave that is sought. For that reason both applications for leave to appeal will be dismissed with costs.