The Court dismissed the defendant's application for early separate determination of the serious harm element under s 10A(5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) in respect of only two of seven pleaded causes of action (the libels), holding that special circumstances justified postponement where: the plaintiff had a fairly arguable case on aggregation of harm across sequential publications of substantially similar matter; a separate hearing could not result in final disposition of the whole proceedings; and the cost savings, court resource implications, and interconnection of issues all weighed against severance. On the meaning of 'serious harm' in s 10A, the Court followed MG v PJ [2025] QCA 99 and Basten AJA's approach in Rader v Haines, holding that the plain and ordinary meaning of 'serious' should be adopted without importing the specific threshold articulated by Lord Sumption in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd for the differently structured UK provision, and declined to follow the majority in Supaphien v Chalyabarn [2026] ACTCA 5 to the extent of conflict.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.