Crespin v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 212

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Crespin v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 212 Hearing dates: 15 September 2015 Date of orders: 15 September 2015 Decision date: 15 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) The first plaintiff is directed to answer interrogatories 1, 2(b)(i), 2(b)(ii), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(iii) (excluding 2(c)(iii)(B)), 3, 4, 6(d) to 6(e) (noting that reference to "documents" in 6(e) will be satisfied by reference to the relevant discovery number), 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 (noting the answer to 16(b) is to be made by reference to the documents produced on discovery and that this will constitute a sufficient answer), 17(b) and 17(c) (provided that the answer to 17(c) will be satisfied by reference to the relevant discovered documents), 18(b), 18(d), 18(e), 19, 20(c), 20(d) (satisfied by reference to the relevant discovered documents), 21(c) and 21(d). (2) The first plaintiff is not required to answer interrogatories 23 and 24 in their current form, but that the defendants may interrogate as to any agreement or settlement that she is asserted to have entered into with the National Australia Bank in the course of continuing to occupy the property since 7 March 2014 (paragraph 39 of the particulars), such interrogatories to be administered in 14 days. (3) The first plaintiff is not required to answer interrogatories 2(b)(iii), 2(c)(iii)(B) and 9. (4) The second plaintiff is directed to answer interrogatories 1, 3(d), 3(e) (satisfied by reference to the relevant discovered document), 4 and 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (interrogatory 13(b) may be answered by reference to the relevant discovery documents), 14(b) and 14(c) (noting that 14(c) may be answered by reference to the relevant discovery documents), 16, 17(b), 17(c), 17(d) ( interrogatory 17(d) may be answered by reference to the relevant discovery documents), 18(c) and 18(d). (5) The second plaintiff is not required to answer interrogatories 20 and 21 in their current form, but that the defendants may interrogate as to any agreement or settlement that he is asserted to have entered into with the National Australia Bank in the course of continuing to occupy the property since 7 March 2014 (paragraph 39 of the particulars), such interrogatories to be administered in 14 days. (6) The costs of this application and of the previous two occasions (13 August 2015 and 10 September 2015) are to be the defendants' costs in the cause. (7) Parties are to administer interrogatories in accordance with these orders on or before 29 September 2015 (14 days from today). (8) Parties to answer interrogatories with verification on or before 30 October 2015. (9) Parties have liberty to restore the matter if there are any issues as to the redrafted interrogatories contemplated by the orders made. (10) Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 12 November 2015 for further directions. Catchwords: TORT – defamation – interrogatories Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 25 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1 Cases Cited: Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 890 Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2012] VSC 493 Bryson v Casey [2002] NSWSC 636 Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 241 Daniels v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1164 Howes v ACP Magazines Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1836 Lewis v Page (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Hunt J, 15 December 1989) Wood v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1944 Texts Cited: District Court Civil Practice Note 6 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: First Plaintiff: Liz Crespin Second Plaintiff: Rob Franklin First Defendant: Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd Second Defendant: Glenn Connley Representation: Counsel: Plaintiffs: Mr R Rasmussen Defendants: Mr R Jedrzejczyk