Benhayon v Rockett (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 1403

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Benhayon v Rockett (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 1403 Hearing dates: 10-11 September 2018 Date of orders: 11 September 2018 Decision date: 17 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: Objection upheld Catchwords: EVIDENCE – relevance Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 55 Cases Cited: IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300 at 311; [2016] HCA 14 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 at 302; [1999] HCA 37 R (Cth) v Petroulias (No 7) [2007] NSWSC 16 Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corporation Pty Ltd (1995) 61 FCR 171 Texts Cited: N Williams et al, The New Law of Evidence (2nd ed, 2009, LexisNexis) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Serge Benhayon (Plaintiff) Esther Rockett (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K Smark SC; N Olson (Plaintiff) T Molomby SC; L Goodchild (Defendant)

Solicitors: Universal Law (Plaintiff) O'Brien Solicitors (Defendant) File Number(s): 2015/329298

Judgment 1. This is a defamation trial before a jury of four. The plaintiff, Serge Benhayon, is described in his statement of claim as a teacher and author who conducts public presentations and training workshops on religious and philosophical principles and a way of living known as "Universal Medicine" and the "Way of the Livingness". 2. The plaintiff also conducts public training workshops in Esoteric Healing described in his statement of claim as a "hands on" complementary healing technique. 3. He has sued the defendant seeking damages and permanent restraining orders in respect of matters she has published in the form of a weblog and a series of comment and "tweets" that he alleges are defamatory. 4. The defendant relies on a number of defences including truth and honest opinion. 5. Particulars of the truth defence filed as an annexure to the Defence include that the plaintiff engages in misleading conduct in promoting the healing services, knowingly makes false claims about healing that cause harm to others, is delusional, exploits followers through false and harmful teachings, engages in bizarre sexual manipulation to make money, denigrates life and glorifies death, engages in dishonest healing practices, makes bogus healing claims, is dishonest and is guilty of exploitative behaviours. 6. An issue has arisen as to the relevance of the evidence to be led from a witness called for the plaintiff, Dr Anne Malatt, who happens to be a medically qualified ophthalmologist. 7. After some biographical details, objection was taken during the following: Q: Did you go and see Serge? A: I did, yes. Q: What sort of services or interaction did you have with him? OBJECTION: Relevance