Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bega v Bilinsky [2014] NSWSC 1572 Hearing dates: 31 October 2014 Decision date: 31 October 2014 Before: McCallum J Decision: Non-publication order made on the last occasion is continued. Catchwords: DEFAMATION - whether non-publication order of District Court judge should be continued Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 Cases Cited: Bleyer v Google [2014] NSWSC 817 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Peter Bega (plaintiff) Claudius Bilinsky (defendant) Representation: Counsel: B McClintock SC (plaintiff) ATS Dawson (defendant) Solicitors: James Tuite & Associates (plaintiff) Kennedys (defendant) File Number(s): 2014/232719 Publication restriction: None Judgment 1HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Peter Bega against a solicitor, Mr Claudius Bilinsky, arising out of the publication of a letter to a single person. When the proceedings first came before me, the parties very properly raised a concern arising from information they had received that the matter complained of was the subject of an order under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 made by a judge of the District Court in criminal proceedings in that Court. The parties have obtained the transcript of the relevant hearing and part of that transcript has been provided to me. It reveals that on 21 July 2014, Judge Syme, in criminal proceedings listed before her Honour, made an order on the application of the Crown "for non-publication of these letters, for non-publication of the details of the names referred to in those letters as well, as a separate matter". 2A consideration of the consequences of that order was complicated by the fact that an email communication from her Honour's associate referred to there having been a "suppression order" in operation. The Act draws a distinction between non-publication orders and suppression orders, the significance of which might be important in the context of the issue raised in these proceedings. In particular, had a suppression order been made, there may well have been force in the concern expressed by the defendant that the hearing of this action may be complicated, if not impeded by the order. However, it is clear upon reading the transcript that the reference to the order as a suppression order was inaccurate, the transcript plainly recording the making of a non-publication order. 3In all the circumstances I consider that there is no impediment to this Court proceeding to deal with the plaintiff's claim in the defamation list, however, in order to give efficacy to the order of Judge Syme I propose to continue the non-publication order I made on the last occasion until further order. 4I will arrange for my associate to communicate with the associate to Judge Syme in order to ascertain the status of the order, the term of its likely application and the basis on which it was made, having regard to the provisions of section 8 of the Act. 5The remaining issues to be determined in the proceedings are an objection to the imputations specified by the plaintiff, or at least one of them, and the defendant's notice of motion filed 13 October 2014 seeking to have the proceedings dismissed, evidently on the grounds of the principles considered by me in Bleyer v Google [2014] NSWSC 817. The parties are agreed that those applications can be argued in the next defamation list next Friday, 7 November 2014. I stand the proceedings over to that date for argument. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 November 2014