Senator Fierravanti-Wells v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 143

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Senator Fierravanti-Wells v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 143

HEARING DATE(S): 16 July 2010

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 July 2010

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Levy SC DCJ

DECISION: Pursuant to s 21(3) of the Defamation Act 2005, I order that the trial of this action proceed without a jury.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – defamation proceedings which would involve prolonged examination of records or technical issues – whether the trial should be ordered to proceed without a jury

Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56 Defamation Act 2005, s 21(3) LEGISLATION CITED: Parliamentary Entitlement Act (Cwth) 1990 Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations (Cwth) 1997 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 29.2

CASES CITED: Mallik v McGeown [2008] NSWSC 129 Mathews v Banning [2008] NSWDC 46

PARTIES: Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (Plaintiff) Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (Defendants)

FILE NUMBER(S): 2010/100777

COUNSEL: Mr R Rasmussen (Plaintiff) Mr TDF Hughes (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: N J Papallo & Co (Plaintiff) Johnson Winter & Slattery (Defendants)

JUDGMENT

1. In the course of a case management review of these proceedings in the Defamation List, it became apparent from a consideration of the pleadings, that it was possible the trial of this action would involve, amongst other things, the prolonged examination of records and technical issues that may not be conveniently considered and resolved by a jury : s 21(3) of the Defamation Act 2005.

2. The procedural chronology is as follows. On 18 March 2010, the plaintiff filed her statement of claim in which she claimed she had been defamed and denigrated by the defendants. On 31 March 2010, the defendants filed an appearance and at the same time filed a notice of intention to elect for a trial by jury. On 30 April 2010, the defendants made an in court announcement of the intention to elect for a trial by jury. An amended statement of claim was filed on 30 April 2010. A further amended statement of claim was filed on 19 May 2010. The defendants filed their defences on 25 June 2010 following the resolution of arguments concerning the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a reply on 5 July 2010 seeking to rebut the defences relied upon.