defendant. Orders: (1) Pursuant to r 28.5 UCPR, the three proceedings (Boikov v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (2015/219371); Boikov v Network Ten Pty Ltd (2015/220364); Boikov v Nationwide News Pty Ltd...
Key principles
Rule 28.5 UCPR authorises the court to order separate proceedings be tried at the same time where there is sufficient commonality of issues and it is convenient and desirable to...
Claims of forensic disadvantage to a party opposing consolidation must be particularised and demonstrated; generalised assertions will not defeat a properly made rule 28.5...
The obligations in s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (just, quick and cheap) are properly weighed in favour of consolidating multiple defamation proceedings where evidence,...
Where the dominant issue (here, justification/defamatory meaning) is common across proceedings, practical conveniences such as witnesses giving evidence once, common pleadings...
Issues before the court
Whether three separate defamation proceedings should be tried at the same time under r 28.5 UCPR.
Whether the plaintiff's asserted forensic disadvantage from a consolidated trial outweighs the advantages of consolidation.
Plain English Summary
The District Court ordered three separate defamation actions by the same plaintiff against three media outlets, all arising from publications on the same day, to be tried together under r 28.5 UCPR. The court found a high degree of overlap in issues (especially justification/meaning), common witnesses and documentary evidence, and concluded that claimed forensic disadvantages to the plaintiff were not sufficiently specific or compelling to defeat consolidation. The court emphasised s 56 Civil Procedure Act considerations (just, quick and cheap) and ordered the trials be heard together with evidence in each proceeding to stand across the others; costs were reserved.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,722 words · generated 08/07/2026
What happened
Three separate defamation proceedings were filed by Simeon Boikov against Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd, Network Ten Pty Ltd and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, each alleging defamatory publications that were published on 20 July 2016. The defendants applied under r 28.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) for the three proceedings to be tried at the same time, and for the evidence in each proceeding to stand as the evidence in the others. The plaintiff opposed consolidation; he proposed separate jury trials followed by separate judicial assessments of damages. Gibson DCJ heard the interlocutory application and, after analysing the material and authorities, ordered that the three proceedings be tried together, that evidence in each stand in the others, reserved costs and gave liberty to the parties to seek listing for a consolidated jury trial estimated at four to five weeks (orders and reasons delivered 5 August 2016).
Whether issues of damages (quantum) should be consolidated following a single liability trial.
How to treat differing defences among defendants (e.g. honest opinion, contextual justification, statutory common law qualified privilege) in a...
Cited legislation
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
The application engaged two overlapping axes of analysis. First, whether the threshold of commonality and convenience under r 28.5 UCPR had been met; second, whether specific forensic prejudice and the requirements of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), notably the 'just, quick and cheap' objects in s 56, pointed against consolidation. The judge resolved both in the defendants' favour. He concluded the dominant issues (meaning and justification) were common and would involve largely the same evidence and witnesses; the asserted forensic disadvantages were either trifling or manageable; and s 56 considerations favoured consolidation to avoid duplication and inconsistent or unfair damages results.
Why the court decided this way
The court's reasoning followed a structured assessment:
Threshold/commonality under r 28.5: Gibson DCJ applied the principles drawn from earlier authorities (notably Ghose and the Humphries checklist). He tested the matters against the Humphries questions: whether the proceedings were broadly similar; whether they involved common issues of fact and law; whether witnesses overlapped; prospects of multiple appeals; likely saving of time; trial management difficulties; whether one matter was more advanced; and inconvenience to parties (see the checklist reproduced and answered in the judgment). The court found a high degree of similarity, the publications were contemporaneous; the core issue of justification (and the fact-finding about imputations and defamatory meaning) was common; particulars and documentary evidence substantially overlapped; and the plaintiff and reputation witnesses would give largely the same evidence once. Those findings satisfied r 28.5 (see the judgment summary of the checklist and positive answers).
Forensic disadvantage: The plaintiff asserted several disadvantages, reduced jury challenges, jury confusion, being out-resourced by multiple defence teams, unreadiness of one defendant's pleading amendments, and delay. The court required specificity. Drawing on authority requiring particularised allegations of prejudice (Krivoshev), Gibson DCJ found many asserted disadvantages were trifling (two challenges vs six in a four-person jury), speculative (jury confusion) or remediable (unreadiness of a pleading by Dailymail): the Dailymail amendment could be resolved well in advance, and any additional particulars from subpoena answers could be accommodated by case management and directions. The court also weighed benefits to the plaintiff of a consolidated hearing (single evidentiary presentation), concluding the plaintiff's forensic concerns did not outweigh the efficiencies.
s 56 Civil Procedure Act considerations: The judge emphasised the public resource dimension. Consolidation prevents duplication of evidence, reduces risk of inconsistent damages awards from similar publications on the same day, and minimises the strain on the court system. The court warned against fragmentation that imposes extra burden on the judiciary and parties and could undermine public confidence in effective administration of justice. The judge accepted that separate trials followed by separate damages assessments would be a substantial drain on resources and presented avoidable practical problems.
Manageability of differences: Differences in defences among defendants (Nationwide pleading honest opinion; Dailymail seeking to rely on contextual justification; Network Ten justifying a narrower range of imputations) were relevant but not decisive. The court considered those differences manageable through jury directions and case management and therefore not a barrier to consolidation.
In sum, convenience, efficiency, the commonality of the dominant issues and the insufficiency of particularised forensic prejudice carried the day.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision, the legal framework for consolidation under r 28.5 UCPR and the guiding criteria had been articulated in earlier cases such as Ghose and Humphries, and courts had emphasised particularity of alleged prejudice (Krivoshev). The Civil Procedure Act's overriding purpose and s 56 objects were already part of the calculus.
This judgment applies those established precedents to a fact pattern now common in defamation litigation: near-simultaneous publication across multiple media platforms. The decision reinforces three practical principles in the local jurisprudence:
A high bar is required to defeat a properly argued consolidation application on forensic prejudice grounds; mere assertions are not enough.
Where the central factual/legal issue (defamatory meaning/justification) is common and evidence overlaps materially, consolidation is likely to be ordered.
s 56 considerations about efficient use of court resources, and the desirability of a single consolidated damages inquiry where publications are contemporaneous, weigh strongly in favour of consolidation.
Post-Boikov, practitioners should treat multi-defendant defamation disputes arising from the same publication event as strong candidates for consolidated trials, unless they can particularise significant and unmanageable prejudice.
Key passages with plain-English translation
Court's description of the application: "The defendants ... seek orders pursuant to r 28.5 ... that each of these proceedings be tried at the same time and that the evidence in one proceedings stand as evidence in the other." [1]
Plain English: Defendants asked for the three lawsuits to be heard together and for the same evidence to count in each case.
"The defence of justification will be the dominant issue at trial ... the similarities in terms of the evidence led for this defence is an argument in favour of the trials being heard together."
Plain English: Because the main contest in all cases will be whether the publications were justified, and that will use much of the same evidence, it makes sense to have a single trial.
"Claims of forensic disadvantage must be particularised; generalised assertions are insufficient ..."
Plain English: If you claim the joint trial will hurt your ability to present your case, you must give detailed reasons, broad complaints will not succeed.
"The s 56 factors are significantly in favour of the defendants' proposal ..."
Plain English: The court's duty to ensure proceedings are handled justly, quickly and cheaply supports having one consolidated trial rather than three separate ones.
Orders: trials to be tried together; evidence to stand as evidence in the others; liberty to list a jury trial for four to five weeks.
Plain English: The court ordered a combined trial, allowed each filing's evidence to be used in all three suits, and invited parties to seek trial dates.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
Boikov provides a template for consolidation where the following features are present:
Multiple defamation actions arise from substantially the same publications or from materially overlapping publications occurring in the same time frame.
The dominant issue across proceedings is the same (commonly meaning/justification), and the particulars of truth or contextual justification rely on the same documents and witnesses (e.g., social media materials, travel documents, legislative context).
A single plaintiff is a witness or central to all proceedings (so his/her evidence would be duplicated if trials were separate).
There is a real prospect of inefficiency, duplication and inconsistent damages awards if trials are not consolidated, particularly where publications occurred contemporaneously.
The defendant(s) can show that differences in defences are peripheral or otherwise manageable with directions or separate short hearing segments.
Conversely, where defendants rely on wholly distinct factual matrices, unique witnesses, or where consolidation would produce genuine, particularised, and unmanageable forensic prejudice, Boikov indicates consolidation may be refused.
How later courts have treated it
Boikov is consistent with a trend in NSW judicial practice favouring pragmatic case management in multi-publication defamation suits. The judgment expressly cites and uses prior authorities (Ghose, Humphries, Toben, Dank, Alex). It reinforces a practical management approach and the requirement of particularised prejudice. Later courts confronting similar fact patterns are likely to rely on the same checklist analysis and s 56 balancing exercise drawn from Boikov, particularly where internet-era multi-platform publication has created groups of similar actions.
Practitioners should expect courts to press parties for specific evidence of prejudice (not assertions), and should prepare to show overlaps in pleadings, documentary evidence, and witness lists to justify consolidated hearings. If a defendant plans to rely on subpoena material obtained in one proceeding, consolidation or permission to rely across proceedings will be relevant in light of Boikov's practical observations about subpoenae and pleading amendments.
Still-open questions
Several practical and doctrinal questions remain for future development:
Degree of permissible procedural differentiation within a consolidated trial: Boikov accepts that differences in defences can be handled by directions. What degree of variation (e.g., wholly different journalistic sources, exclusive witnesses, materially different imputations) will tip the balance away from manageability remains to be delineated.
Use of subpoena material obtained in one proceeding: Boikov notes the practical difficulty that subpoenas in one proceeding do not automatically bind others without leave. How courts will manage cross-use of disclosure or third-party material in consolidated trials requires further procedural refinement.
Quantification of damage awards across multiple defendants: Boikov favours a single damages assessment to avoid duplication and inconsistent awards. The precise mechanics for apportioning damages between multiple defendants after a consolidated liability finding will raise complex questions, especially where defendants’ roles in publication are materially different.
Jury management where single trial involves multi-media publications and differing imputations: Although Gibson DCJ expressed confidence in jury capacity to follow directions, subsequent appellate scrutiny may test the limits of jury comprehension where factual strands are numerous and defendant-specific.
Timing and listing implications: Boikov suggested the consolidated trial could be listed earlier than a staggered schedule would permit. How courts prioritise listing when a consolidated trial would be long remains a logistic issue for lists and practitioners.
In practice, Boikov is a strong precedent for consolidation of contemporaneous multi-defendant defamation actions. Its application, however, will continue to depend upon careful case management and tailored orders to address the precise overlaps and differences in each factual matrix.
Catchwords
Alex v WhittakerAlex v GoodsirAlex v Fairfax Media Publications Pty LtdAlex v The Age Company Ltd
Judgment (10 paragraphs)
[1]
The application before the court
The defendants in each of these three defamation jury actions (not yet listed for trial) seek orders pursuant to r 28.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR") that each of these proceedings be tried at the same time and that the evidence in one proceedings stand as evidence in the other. This is intended to include any damages assessment following the trial, which must be determined by the judge and not the jury, as the defendants say the damages assessable in each of these actions should be determined at in one single damages hearing. The defendants also seek concurrent case management in the defamation list.
The plaintiff opposes the application. Mr Rasmussen, counsel for the plaintiff, proposes that each of these jury trials should be heard by a separate jury, and then followed by a separate assessment of damages by the relevant trial judge, resulting in six hearings instead of the single liability and assessment procedure proposed by the plaintiff.
[2]
The plaintiff's submissions
The trial mode proposed by the defendants would clearly result in a simpler and shorter trial which would be less onerous for the court to list and case manage. The plaintiff asks me not to be distracted by these apparent advantages and to concentrate on the unfairness and prejudice to the plaintiff of such a course, which is the question to which the court must direct itself in applications such as these.
Mr Rasmussen points to three main areas of prejudice and unfairness:
1. The similarities of these three causes of action outweigh their differences and this will create prejudice and unfairness at the trial due to the complicated jury directions.
2. The plaintiff will be at a forensic disadvantage by having to fight three defendants and their highly-skilled legal teams at the same time.
3. The interests of justice and s 56 - 62 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) features favour the plaintiff.
[3]
The relevant principles
Rule 28.5 UCPR permits the court to order proceedings be tried at the same time, or immediately one after the other, in circumstances where there is a commonality of issues making it convenient and desirable to do so. The relevant principles have been set out by Austin J in Ghose v Cx Reinsurance Company Ltd [2010] NSWSC 110 and Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699 at [11]. I have set out those questions, and answered them, below.
However, with the greatest of respect to the makers of these lists, there are two other important issues to add. The first is the question of court resources. The second is the need to place greater weight on claims of unfairness and prejudice to the party opposing such an order than this list provides. Mr Rasmussen placed great weight on these additional factors, and I propose to do the same.
[4]
Similarities and differences in the three proceedings
All the matters complained of in all three proceedings were published on 20 July 2016, which is agreed by the parties to be a relevant issue. However, Mr Rasmussen submits that the subject matter of each is not the same. He describes the common thread of these proceedings (written submissions, 27 July 2016) as follows:
"6. At the heart of each proceeding is in fact whether the plaintiff flew to the Ukraine to join and or fight with the rebels that shot down the Malaysian Airline Flight and whether or not his Facebook post is a call to arms and whether by doing so and returning to Australia he committed the crime of Foreign Incursion."
This passage of Mr Rasmussen's submissions was adopted with enthusiasm by the defendants. What the parties cannot agree upon is whether each of the defendants has treated this subject matter the same way. There are differences in the approach taken to these events which result in differences in the defences. Mr Rasmussen submits that, as a result, "other issues are peculiar to each individual defendant's case" (plaintiff's written submissions, paragraph 6) and that these differences prevail over the similarities of subject matter. These differences, it is submitted, make it impossible for these proceedings to be run together.
What then are the differences? Counsel for the plaintiff points to the following:
1. Only the Nationwide News defendant spoke to the plaintiff and relies upon a defence of honest opinion;
2. The Nationwide News defendant only justifies five different imputations from three matters complained of (out of 36 imputations);
3. The Network Ten defendant only justifies one imputation out of five;
4. The Dailymail.com publication justifies no imputations, but proposes to rely upon six contextual justification imputations.
5. The defendants otherwise plead defences of offer of amends and common law and statutory qualified privilege.
What this demonstrates is that each of the defendants takes a slightly different position in relation to the justification defence, one defendant (where there was a conversation with the plaintiff) relies upon a defence of honest opinion but that the defences are otherwise the same. This is confirmed by the table prepared by Mrs Barnett setting out the particulars of truth (or, in the case of the Dailymail.com defendant, the defence of contextual truth), which demonstrates that:
1. The particulars of justification for each defence are in the same order, cover the same facts and are effectively in the same wording.
2. The particulars of justification for each defence refer to the same evidence, namely the plaintiff's outgoing passenger card, Facebook posts and anti-terrorism legislation and will involve the same witnesses.
3. Mrs Barnett advises that the additional particulars proposed by the Dailymail.com defendant for their contextual justification defence, the result of answers to recent subpoenae, will be adopted by the other defendants. The difficulty has been that subpoenae issued in one proceeding cannot be relied upon in other proceedings without leave, which is one of the problems that the hearing of these proceedings together can resolve.
4. Although Mr Rasmussen points to the difference between the defence of s 26 contextual justification by the Dailymail.com defendant and the defence of s 25 justification by the other defendants, the practical reality is that it is at least open (and in fact likely) that an application will be made by the plaintiff to plead back the Dailymail.com defendant's contextual imputations (for a recent example of this common trial tactic, see Jones v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 922).
[5]
However, that is not the end of the argument. The plaintiff next submits that the hearing of these three trials together puts him at a considerable forensic disadvantage.
[6]
The plaintiff's forensic difficulties
The plaintiff's second complaint is that the hearing of these three trials at the same time will place him at a forensic disadvantage. It is necessary to do more than assert generalised forensic disadvantage (Krivoshev v RSPCA [2005] NSWCA 76 at [117]), and this makes it necessary to determine these disadvantages with some care. Mr Rasmussen identifies the following:
1. Inadequate jury challenges - The plaintiff would have only two challenges while the defendants would have six, where the jury is composed of four people.
2. This is a consideration of a comparatively trifling nature, especially since it is generally the case that there are very few juror challenges in defamation trials.
3. Jury confusion - This is a restatement of the first ground, which I do not consider will be a problem. Nor do I consider it will be difficult for the plaintiff to meet (and for the jury to understand) a combined case which includes television and internet publications as well as print media. Juries in both criminal and defamation trials are robust and capable of following directions from the trial judge. It should be noted that there has not been a single perverse jury finding in any defamation trial since the uniform legislation was introduced a decade ago.
4. An unequal playing field -The plaintiff will have to compete with the resources of "three separate law firms that are extraordinarily experienced in defamation litigation" who "will conduct their case differently, raise different issues forensically" and otherwise take the plaintiff (who is "instructing a small firm and one counsel") will have to contend with during the trial (written submissions, paragraph 1).
5. At present Mrs Barnett appears in two of the proceedings and Mr Richardson in the third. Mrs Barnett expects to have a leader. That level of representation is commonly the case in jury trials in both defamation and criminal trials. Jurors are not easily misled by the number of counsel at the table.
6. Unreadiness of the Dailymail.com proceedings - There is an outstanding application by the Dailymail.com defendant to amend the defence to introduce a defence of contextual justification. However, this will be determined later this year, well in advance of the trial.
7. Delay in obtaining a hearing date - It is submitted that these proceedings could be given a hearing date if they are heard independently of each other as separate two week trials, or in the case of the Nationwide News hearing, a four week trial. It is submitted that the very long trial which would result if these proceedings were combined could not be heard until 2019.
8. As I indicated to the parties in the course of this application, if they are prepared to seek an early hearing date now, they could be allocated a trial for these proceedings as early as July 2017 or shortly thereafter, depending upon the precise length of the trial.
9. As to the length of the trial, having regard to the very substantial saving of time which would be effected by having the plaintiff and his witnesses only give evidence once, I consider that the likelihood is that this trial would take at most five weeks, as opposed to three separate jury trials.
[7]
"Just, quick and cheap" considerations
In addition to his other two arguments, Mr Rasmussen also submits that the relevant factors concerning court resources and the need for "just, quick and cheap" (s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)) resolution are in his favour.
The profound changes to the nature of publication arising from the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle have resulted in applications of this kind becoming more common. In Toben v Mathieson; Toben v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1530 at [3], McCallum J noted the increasing likelihood of multiple proceedings of similar matter published in different versions of the same newspaper (see also Dank v Whittaker (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 732, Dank v Whittaker (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 914 and Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (2015) 237 FCR 32).
Increasingly, however, applications of this nature are being brought where there is publication of similar material over the same time period by different defendants: see for example Alex v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Alex v Whittaker; Alex v Goodsir; Alex v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Alex v The Age Company Ltd; Alex v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2016] NSWDC 96. The parties in those proceedings had in fact agreed to the hearing of groups of those cases together; the sole question for determination was whether all six could be heard at the same time or whether they should be heard in two separate tranches.
When considering the "just" aspect of s 56, I consider it is as much against the plaintiff's interest, as well as the defendants', for these trials to be heard separately. As I noted in Alex v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Alex v Whittaker; Alex v Goodsir; Alex v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Alex v The Age Company Ltd; Alex v Australian Broadcasting Corporation at [27], the plaintiff may be at a disadvantage if his claim is split into three cases, in terms of forensic decisions his counsel may make, use of the first transcript in any subsequent trials and problems arising from any appeals brought while trials are still outstanding.
Issues of prejudice to the defendants may arise from the unfairness to the whichever defendant is the first "cab off the rank", not only in relation to the evidence led, but in terms of assessment of damages. Issues of mitigation of damages arising from the awarding of sums for similar imputations arising from publication on the same day would be difficult to determine unless all three damages hearings were determined at the same time.
[8]
Conclusions
As to the degree of similarity in the issues in the trial, I am satisfied that the answers to the questions listed by Besanko J in Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd demonstrate not only that the threshold requirement in r 28.5(a) UCPR is established but that the level of similarity is high. The desirability of having these proceedings case managed and heard together is clear.
As to the issues of forensic prejudice identified by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that these can be dealt with by joint case management of these proceedings prior to a hearing date at the end of 2017 (which can be allocated now) and by appropriate directions to the jury.
Finally, as to s 56 issues, the case management of multiple defamation proceedings is never going to be an easy task. However, difficulties arising from differences in such proceedings are not best dealt with by allowing those differences to prevail over the similarities in the manner advocated by Mr Rasmussen. The parties also need to take into account the need for this court, the biggest criminal trial court in Australia, to allocate its limited resources in a manner described by Gleeson CJ (albeit in another context entirely) with regard to "practical justice rather than philology" (Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135 at 137).
Additionally, I consider that public confidence in the court system requires the court to adopt common sense solutions aimed at keeping legal costs and use of public resources within reasonable parameters. When members of the public read accounts of trials which have gone for lengthy periods and cost millions of dollars, they do not admire the cleverness of the lawyers, but question the efficacy of the legal system.
The orders sought by the defendants are not only in the interests of the parties in the obtaining of just, cheap and quick resolution of the issues in the litigation, but in the interests of justice generally, and the defendants' application is accordingly granted.
I have reserved the issue of costs. I encourage the parties to seek allocation of a hearing date and to list the Dailymail.com application to amend its defence as quickly as possible, so that all matters are equally ready and case management to trial can start as soon as practicable.
[9]
Orders
1. Pursuant to r 28.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), each of the following proceedings be tried at the same time:
1. Boikov v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (2015/219371);
2. Boikov v Network Ten Pty Ltd (2015/220364); and
3. Boikov v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2015/220729).
1. The evidence in each of these proceedings stand as the evidence in the others.
2. Costs reserved.
3. Liberty to approach the List Judge for allocation of dates for a jury trial for these proceedings with an estimate of four to five weeks.
[10]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 05 August 2016
Orders: (1) Pursuant to r 28.5 UCPR, the three proceedings (Boikov v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (2015/219371); Boikov v Network Ten Pty Ltd (2015/220364); Boikov v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2015/220729)) are to be tried at the same time; (2) the evidence in each proceeding stands as the evidence in the others; (3) costs reserved; (4) liberty to approach the List Judge for allocation of dates for a jury trial (estimate 4 to 5 weeks).
The defence of justification will be the dominant issue at trial in terms of time and evidence, and I am satisfied that the similarities in terms of the evidence led for this defence is an argument in favour of the trials being heard together. The test for whether the imputations are conveyed, and the concept of defamatory meaning, will result in the same fact-finding exercise in all three sets of proceedings. The plaintiff and his reputation witnesses will need to give evidence only once.
The different evidence which will be led as to the qualified privilege defences by each defendant (and the honest opinion defence relied upon by Nationwide News) will be of a comparatively minor nature and can be accommodated by appropriate directions from the court.
Taking all of the above into account, the answering of the checklist in Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd points to the desirability of these proceedings being heard together:
1 Are the proceedings broadly of a similar nature? Yes
2 Are there issues of fact and law common to each Yes
proceeding?
3 Will witnesses (lay and expert) in one proceeding be Yes (the plaintiff in particular)
witnesses in one or more of the other proceedings?
Has there been an alternative proposal put forward that
4 there be a test case and have the parties agreed to abide No
the outcome, or, at least, the determination of common issues of fact and law?
5 Is there a prospect of multiple appeals with substantial Yes
delays if the proceedings are not tried at the same time?
Will there be a substantial saving of time if the proceedings
6 are tried at the same time, compared with each proceeding Yes
being tried separately?
Will an order that the proceedings be tried at the same time
7 create difficulties in terms of trial management, complexity of No
procedural issues and difficulties in determining cross-admissibility of evidence?
8 Is one proceeding further advanced in terms of preparation Yes, but there is time to rectify this before the trial
for trial than the others?
Are there parties to one or some only of the proceedings
9 who will be inconvenienced if all of the proceedings are tried All defendant consent to this course
at the same time?
The issues of forensic disadvantage raised by Mr Rasmussen in his submissions are also outweighed by the very considerable tactical advantages of the plaintiff and his witnesses only having to give evidence once.
I am satisfied that the issues of forensic disadvantage pointed to by the plaintiff are insufficient to outweigh the very material advantages of these proceedings being heard together.
The remaining issue is the question of court resources and the avoidance of delay and expense for the court as well as the parties, this being part the overarching factors in s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
Compare this proposal to that proposed by the plaintiff. Mr Rasmussen is seeking not only three jury trials, but also three separate assessment hearings by the judge following each of those trials, all of which would, preferably, be heard by the same judge. This would be a considerable drain on court resources as well as on the parties, and the potential for problems if one trial overruns its length, or is the subject of appeal, or is aborted, is considerable.
The plaintiff is effectively asking this court to provide one judge to be available for three separate jury trials and three separate damages assessments, over a period of some months, with gaps in between if they cannot be held back to back. Additionally, the judge making the damages assessments would probably need to revisit his/her first and second judgments to allow for damages in the third judgment in the event that the plaintiff is successful in all three actions.
By comparison, the defendants propose a single trial before the jury of liability issues, to be followed by an assessment hearing in relation to those parts of the claim or claims in which the plaintiff is successful. By having one hearing in relation to the assessment of damages, issues of mitigation can be taken into account.
Defamation proceedings are already complicated by the splitting of quantum and liability issues where there is a jury empanelled. The problems caused by split trials of this sort in other litigation are well known (Warragamba Winery Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 174). The plaintiff's proposed trial model puts stress on the split liability/quantum trial process made necessary by the empanelment of a jury by adding a series of further separate trials.
The s 56 factors are significantly in favour of the defendants' proposal for the trials being heard together.