Karam Chand Ramrakha v Mahendra Pal Chaudhry and National Farmers Union [2007] NSWSC 991

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Karam Chand Ramrakha v Mahendra Pal Chaudhry and National Farmers Union [2007] NSWSC 991

HEARING DATE(S) : 13/08/07

JUDGMENT DATE : 6 September 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Patten AJ at 1

DECISION : See paragraph 35

Defamantion Act 1974 LEGISLATION CITED : Legal Profession Act 2004 Supreme Court Rules Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CASES CITED : General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112CLR 125 Sirius Shipping Corporation v The Ship Sunrise [2007] NSWSC 766

Karem Chand Ramrakha - Plaintiff PARTIES : Mahendra Pal Chaudhry - First Defendant National Farmers Union - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 13196 of 2007

COUNSEL : Mr M Rollinson - Plaintiff Mr T D Hughes - Defendants

SOLICITORS : Ramrakha Jenkins Solicitors Harish Prasad & Associates Solicitors

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Patten AJ

6 August 2007

No: 13196 of 2007

Karam Chand Ramrakha v Mahendra Pal Chaudhry and National Farmers Union

JUDGMENT: 1 This is a motion for summary dismissal of a Summons filed on 26 June 2007 whereby the Plaintiff appeals from, and seeks leave to appeal from determinations made by a costs review panel in relation to proceedings in this court (20309/2004) between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (the previous proceedings). By way of alternative relief, the Plaintiff inter alia seeks Declarations as to the application of Pt 52A rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) following the conclusion of the previous proceedings. I will later refer in more detail to the relief claimed. 2 The relevant facts, although not in dispute, are rather complicated. In the previous proceedings, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants claiming that he was defamed by a book published by the Defendants entitled "Children of the Indus". Paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim alleged that the Second Defendant is incorporated under the Trade Unions Act of the Republic of Fiji Islands and liable to be sued under its corporate name. Paragraph 2 alleged publication of the book in NSW as well as other states of Australia. 3 By a pleading entitled "Section 7A Defence" the Second Defendant put in issue its incorporation and both Defendants put in issue publication. They also denied that the matter complained of gave rise to the imputations pleaded against them. 4 On 11 March 2005, the Plaintiff served upon the Defendants a formal notice to admit the following facts: "1. The first defendant is, and has since a time no later than 1 May 2004 continuously been the General Secretary of the second defendant. 2. The second defendant is incorporated under the Trade Unions' Act of the Republic of Fiji Islands. 3. The first defendant, acting in his capacity as General Secretary of the second defendant, publicly launched the book "Children of the Indus" [the book] in Suva, Fiji in the month of May 2004. 4. On the 23 May 2004 the first defendant, acting in his capacity as General Secretary of the second defendant, publicly launched the book in Fairfield, New South Wales, Australia. 5. The first defendant, acting in his capacity as General Secretary of the second defendant, publicly launched the book in the United States of America in August 2004. 6. The first defendant wrote the book, "Children of the Indus" and is the author thereof. 7. The part of the report purporting to the (sic) by one Devika Narayan in the 23 May 2004 issue of the Sunday Times in Suva Fiji as annexed and marked "A", is a true and accurate record of what was said by the first defendant at the time of the launch of the book in Suva, Fiji. 8. The part of the transcript annexed and marked "B" is a true and accurate record of part of an interview by one Ranjit Raju with the first defendant in the United States and of the words spoken by the first defendant during the interview." 5 The Defendants, in effect, disputed all of the above facts except the first, which was admitted. 6 Following receipt of the notice disputing facts, the Plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the Defendants' solicitors omitting formal parts: "We refer to your client's Notice Disputing Facts which was sent by facsimile on 24 March 2005. We note that the First Defendant disputes certain allegations as to his role in publication of the book "Children of the Indus" (herein after 'the book'). Because of your client's disputing – in particular – fact 6, we ask the following: 1. Does Mr Chaudhry admit the second defendant was the publisher of the book? 2. Does Mr Chaudhry admit he was the chief executive officer and/or the general secretary of the Second Defendant at the time the book was published? 3. Does Mr Chaudhry admit that he was the author of the forward to the book? 4. Does Mr Chaudhry admit that he was interviewed in or about July 2004 by Mr Ranjit Raju in California in the United States of America? 5. Does Mr Chaudhry admit that in the interview with Mr Raju, he said words to the effect that one of the purposes of his visit to the United States was to promote the book, which he had written?