Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 5) [2013] NSWSC 1650

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 5) [2013] NSWSC 1650 Hearing dates: 21-25; 28-30 October 2013 Decision date: 28 October 2013 Before: Adamson J Decision: Refuse leave to the first plaintiff to re-open its case to prove that it is an excluded corporation within s 9(2) of the Defamation Act Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- application to re-open case- inconsistent with overriding purpose and guiding principles

DEFAMATION- s 9 Defamation Act 2005 Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s56, s 57, s 57(1)(a)-(d), s 58, s 58(1), s 58(2), s 58(2)(b), s 59 Defamation Act 2005, s 9, s 9 (2), s 9(2)(b) Cases Cited: AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27, 239 CLR 175 Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 6) [2013] NSWSC 1651 Redeemer Baptist School Limited v Glossop [2006] NSWSC 1201 Heartcheck Australia Pty Limited v Channel 7 Sydney Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 555 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Born Brands Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff) Hayley Birtles-Eades (Second Plaintiff) Sally Birtles (Third Plaintiff) Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Gabriella Rogers (Second Defendant) Georgie Gardener (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: CA Evatt and RKM Rasmussen (Plaintiffs) TD Blackburn SC and ATS Dawson (Defendants) Solicitors: Beazley Singleton Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Johnson Winter and Slattery (Defendants) File Number(s): 2011/115199 Publication restriction: Nil