Ghosh v Miller (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 212

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ghosh v Miller (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 212 Hearing dates: 24 September 2018 Date of orders: 24 September 2018 Decision date: 27 September 2018 Before: McColl JA; Basten JA; Leeming JA Decision: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 19 June 2017. 3. In lieu thereof, stay the proceedings in the Common Law Division until the plaintiff has satisfied a judge conducting the Defamation List that: (a) she has taken all steps required of her pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and any extant orders of a judge in the Division or in the District Court, (b) she is able and willing to conduct a trial of the matter efficiently and expeditiously. 4. Any application to lift the stay shall be made on the papers and addressed ex parte. 5. If the judge considering the application to lift the stay is satisfied on a prima facie basis as to conditions (a) and (b), the judge may order that all relevant material be served on the defendants, who may be heard on any motion by the plaintiff to lift the stay imposed by order 3. Catchwords: PRACTICE – summary dismissal – primary judge dismissed proceedings but granted leave to commence fresh proceedings if plaintiff could show they would be conducted efficiently – fresh proceedings prima facie statute-barred – statute of limitations not raised before primary judge – appeal allowed, orders set aside and new orders made staying proceedings until plaintiff could show they would be conducted efficiently Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 63, 91 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14B, 63(1), 68A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 10.19, 10.20, 51.1 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ghosh v Miller (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 791 Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 771; [2011] NSWCA 324 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dr Ratna Ghosh (Appellant) Rodney Miller (First Respondent) Elizabeth Everingham Miller (Second Respondent) Marilyn Bee (Third Respondent) John Bee (Fourth Respondent) Michael Ryan (Fifth Respondent) Adam Schuch (Sixth Respondent) Karen Schuch (Seventh Respondent) Representation: Counsel: