Rinehart v Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Ltd [2015] NSWSC 239

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rinehart v Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Ltd [2015] NSWSC 239 Hearing dates: 13 February 2015 Date of orders: 13 February 2015 Decision date: 13 February 2015 Before: Garling J Decision: (1)Pursuant to rule 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 I order that the defendant forthwith discover, or cause to be discovered to the plaintiff a digital video disc of Episode 2 of the program "House of Hancock" ("the DVD") scheduled to be broadcast on the evening of Sunday, 15 February 2015. (2)I order that the DVD discovered to the plaintiff only be viewed by the plaintiff, senior and junior counsel presently retained by the plaintiff, Mr Mark Wilks and his associate solicitor presently acting, Ms Kim Hamilton, Mr Brad Ross and Mr Tad Watroba. (3)I order that the named persons have access to the DVD for the sole purpose of considering whether the plaintiff personally may be entitled to make a claim for relief from the Court against the defendant and whether or not she should commence proceedings against the defendant. (4)I order that the DVD provided by way of discovery is not to be copied or reproduced in any way unless: (a) essential for the purpose of the plaintiff and Mr Watroba viewing the contents of the program; and (b) only to the extent necessary to be reproduced in evidence to be tendered to this Court in any claim for relief which the plaintiff may bring. (5)I direct the parties to confer about whether there is a more efficient electronic means by which the contents of the DVD can be securely electronically transmitted to the plaintiff and Mr Watroba, other than by making a copy of it. (6)I order that any copy of the DVD not itself be copied or further distributed, and that the custody of such copy be limited to Mr Wilks and Ms Hamilton, unless essential for the obtaining of instructions from the plaintiff and the viewing of it by her and Mr Watroba. In such event, any such copy is to be forthwith returned to the custody of Mr Wilks. (7)I order that no later than 9.15pm tonight, the solicitors for the plaintiff are to notify the solicitors for the defendant by electronic mail of any decision to commence proceedings to make a claim for relief by way of pre-publication injunction with respect to the broadcast of the episode of the House of Hancock on Sunday, 15 February 2015. I order that any such notification also be provided to the Court through my associate. (8)If the plaintiff intends to commence proceedings, I order that the solicitors for the plaintiff provide to the solicitors for the defendant no later than 8am, Saturday 14 February 2015, a copy of the pleadings to be relied upon and all evidence in support of such application. (9)I order that if the defendant wishes to rely upon any evidence or other material, it is to be provided by electronic mail to the solicitors for the plaintiff by no later than 11.15am, 14 February 2015. In the event that such application is made, or is to be made, I fix it for hearing before me at 12 noon tomorrow, 14 February 2015. I direct that a copy of any electronic exchange of pleadings or evidence be provided to my Associate. (10)I direct that a copy of Episode 2 of the "House of Hancock", which is to be discovered to the plaintiff, be provided to the Court in a securely sealed package by delivery to the Court security staff by 10am, 14 February 2015. (11)I reserve all questions of costs. (12)I stand over the balance of the relief sought in the Summons in these proceedings to 2pm Friday 20 February 2015. Catchwords: PROCEDURE – discovery – preliminary discovery – defamation – injurious falsehood – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 – interlocutory injunction to restrain publication – whether reasonable enquiries have been made under r 5.3(1)(a) UCPR – whether shortness of time between inquiries and bringing application makes inquiries unreasonable – whether making order consistent with overriding objective of the just, quick and cheap resolution of issues in proceedings – whether such low prospects of a prepublication injunction that granting preliminary discovery is a practical futility – whether prior publication of allegedly defamatory imputations – regard to principle of free speech Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Commission v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 Hatfield v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 69 Stocker v McElhinney (No. 2) [1961] NSWR 1043 Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Georgina Rinehart (P) Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Ltd (D) Representation: Counsel: T Blackburn SC / S Hartford-Davis (P) P Gray SC (D)