Darwin v Norman [2017] NSWSC 777

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Darwin v Norman [2017] NSWSC 777 Hearing dates: 9 June 2017 Decision date: 09 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Pursuant to rule 7.36 of the UCPR first defendant referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for advice and representation at the interlocutory applications; proceedings stood over to 16 June 2017 Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Mark James Darwin (first plaintiff) Adrian Peter Brennock (second plaintiff) Phillip John Dixon (third fourth) Steven Peter McSween (fourth plaintiff) Gillian Norman (first defendant) Nimbin Community School Co-operative Ltd t/as The Nimbin Good Times (second defendant) Representation: Counsel: L Barnett (plaintiffs) Defendant self-represented (via telephone)

Solicitors: Stone Group (plaintiffs) File Number(s): 2017/00081825

Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by a number of parties against Ms Gillian Norman as first defendant and the proprietor of The Nimbin Good Times as second defendant. 2. The plaintiffs wish to amend their pleading. A proposed amended statement of claim has been served recently. The second defendant is represented and wishes to argue some objections to the form of that pleading. The first defendant, Ms Norman, is unrepresented. I am informed by Ms Barnett, although I have not seen the proposed amended statement of claim myself, that it brings some causes of action against Ms Norman only and not against the second defendant. Accordingly it will be necessary for Ms Norman to put separate argument as to those causes of action. 3. Separately, Ms Norman has informed me that she wishes to argue that the proceedings are in the nature of what in the United States is called a SLAPP writ, that is, a defamation action brought for the purpose of closing down proper debate on an issue of public interest. 4. Finally, Ms Barnett (who appears for the plaintiffs) has informed me that there will be a separate application served against Ms Norman seeking to restrain publication of certain matters. 5. As to all of those matters, Ms Norman plainly has an interest in obtaining legal representation, but she informs me that she cannot afford it. She is on the Age Pension. She states that she has no assets and she asserts that is due to the matters the subject of her various publications. 6. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to refer her to the registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance. In reaching that conclusion I have had regard to her limited means, the unlikelihood of her obtaining legal assistance outside the scheme and the complexity of the issues to which I have referred. In addition, I have had regard to Ms Norman's medical condition which is the subject of a doctor's letter provided to the Court by her in anticipation of the hearing today and on the strength of which I granted her leave to appear by telephone rather than to attend personally. 7. For the time being, the kind of referral should, I think, be limited to advice in relation to the proceedings and representation at the interlocutory applications to which I have referred. It may be that in due course someone would accept a referral for final hearing but I would prefer to carve that out of the current referral. I make that order pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).