Noble v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 121

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Noble v Phillips [2017] NSWSC 121 Hearing dates: 17 February 2017 Decision date: 17 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Plaintiff granted leave to interrogate the 1st and 2nd defendants in the following terms: "Did you communicate [X] or words to that effect; if so what were the exact words communicated and in what form?"; as between the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants, costs of today's argument be each party's costs in the cause; as between the plaintiff and the 3rd and 4th defendants, plaintiff to pay those parties' costs of today's argument; parties directed to bring in short minutes of orders for the future conduct of the proceedings in accordance with the Practice Note Catchwords: DEFAMATION – slander – newspaper article attributing certain remarks to defendant – publication of attributed words admitted in part – consideration of appropriateness of granting leave to plaintiff at an early stage of the proceedings to interrogate that defendant to determine the precise words said Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), pt 6 Defamation List Practice Note SC CL 4, cl 13(b) Cases Cited: Dank v Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club [2013] NSWSC 1101 Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2014] NSWCA 288 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Peter Bruce Noble (plaintiff) Stephen Snowden Phillips (first defendant) Biolink Pty Ltd (second defendant) Michael Slezak (third defendant) GNM Australia Pty Limited (fourth defendant) Representation: Counsel: B Connell (plaintiff) M Richardson (first and second defendants) R Potter (third and fourth defendants)