In assessing whether a defamation plaintiff has an 'effective remedy' against a newspaper defendant (such that preliminary discovery to identify sources is unnecessary), the court must consider not only the likely recovery of damages but also the difficulty of proof occasioned by non-disclosure, including the plaintiff's ability to prove aggravated damages. An undertaking by a newspaper not to rely on qualified privilege does not necessarily provide an effective remedy where the plaintiff's ability to prove forgery of source documents is impaired. There is no special costs rule for media defendants to preliminary discovery applications; costs are governed by CPA s 98 and UCPR 42.1 in all the circumstances. There is no preclusive rule against second interlocutory applications, but the interests of justice govern whether relitigation should be permitted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 53 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 53 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.