Munn v Tunks (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 506

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Munn v Tunks (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 506 Hearing dates: On written submissions Decision date: 01 May 2014 Before: McCallum J Decision: Plaintiff ordered to pay the first and second defendants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed 13 August 2013. Catchwords: COSTS Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 6.2(4) Service and Execution of Process Act, s 16 Cases Cited: Munn v Tunks [2013] NSWSC 1263 Category: Costs Parties: Alasdair John Munn (plaintiff) Graeme Tunks (first defendant) Anndrette Tunks-White (second defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff in person T Goldberg (solicitor)(defendants) Solicitors: Turner Freeman (defendants) File Number(s): 2012/254066 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Alasdair Munn by statement of claim filed 15 August 2012. On 3 September 2013, on the application of the first and second defendants, I dismissed the proceedings against those parties: Munn v Tunks [2013] NSWSC 1263. 2The application determined on that occasion was based on Mr Munn's alleged failure duly to serve the originating process. During the course of the hearing, however, it became apparent that the period within which the pleading was valid for service had expired. Mr Munn made an oral application to have that period extended. I concluded that the period within which the pleading was valid for service should not be extended and, accordingly, that the question whether the service of the pleading had been duly effected in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 was moot. It followed that it was not necessary to make the orders sought by the first and second defendants and that the proceedings had to be dismissed. 3In light of the fact that the application was determined on a basis different from that raised on behalf of the defendants, I gave the parties an opportunity to address me as to the appropriate order as to costs. 4The second and third defendants provided written submissions within the time allowed. The plaintiff did not. Upon being contacted by the defendants, the plaintiff indicated that he did not propose to put on any submissions as to costs. 5After considering the matters raised in the written submissions filed on behalf of the first and second defendants and in the absence of any submission to the contrary, I am persuaded that costs should follow the event, notwithstanding the matter to which I have referred. 6The order is that the plaintiff pay the first and second defendants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed 13 August 2013.