Harris v 718932 Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 784

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Harris v 718932 Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 784 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division Defamation List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 21479 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 and 19 July 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 August 2000

Arthur Harris (Plaintiff) 718932 Pty Limited (formerly Globe Press Pty Limited) (Second Defendant) PARTIES : Capricorn Link (Australia) Pty Limited (Third Defendant) William Stanley Waterhouse (Fourth Defendant) Robert Waterhouse (Fifth Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Windeyer J at 1

Mr T Tobin QC with him Mr D R Campbell (Plaintiff/Respondent) COUNSEL : Mr B McClintock SC (Second Defendant/Applicant) Mr K Smark (Third Defendant/Applicant) Mr C A Evatt with him Ms M Fraser (Fourth & Fifth Defendants/Applicants) Verekers (Plaintiff/Respondent) SOLICITORS : Bush Burke & Company (Second Defendant/Applicant) Gye Associates (Third Defendant/Applicant) Ramrakha Jenkins (Fourth & Fifth Defendants/Applicants) CATCHWORDS : DEFAMATION - where plaintiff recovered in litigation on first publication and seeks to recover for second and third publications against different defendants including different printer and distributor - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - abuse of process - application for striking out of proceedings for defamation on grounds of abuse of process - whether re-litigation of same cause of action - Anshun estoppel - whether the previous action should have been amended to add claims based on reprints or to add additional defendants - where claims by plaintiff inconsistent with claims in previous proceedings - whether prospect of inconsistent findings - Pt13 r5, Pt15r26 Supreme Court Rules - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - estoppel - whether a defence of estoppel should be pleaded and tried separately rather than bring motion for dismissal as abuse of process - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - defamation - amendment of imputations - date of operation of amendment - Pt20 r4(5) Supreme Court Rules Defamation Act s9(3), s48 Limitation Act LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules Pt8 r8, Pt13 r5, Pt15 r26, Pt 15 r26(1)(b), Pt20 r1(3A), Pt20 r4(5) Pt20 r4(6) Handley JA "Anshun Today" (1997) 71 ALJ 934 at 938 Cross on Evidence 6th Australian Edition paragraph 5120 Effem Foods Pty Limited v Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Limited (1993) 43 FCR 510 Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 Macdougall v Knight (1890) 25 QBD 1 Maronis Holdings Ltd & Anor v Nippon Credit Australia Ltd (unreported Windeyer J 6 October 1994) CASES CITED : MCC Proceeds Inc. v Lehman Bros International (Europe) [1998] 4 All ER 675 Morris v Wentworth-Stanley [1999] QB 1004 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589 Reichel v Bishop of Oxford (1889) 14 AppCas 259 Thomson v Lambert (1938) 2 DLR 545 VACC Insurance Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (1999) 47 NSWLR 716 Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Hong Kong Bank Ltd [1975] AC 581 DECISION : See paragraphs 31 to 34