Rana v Google Inc

1. To the extent necessary, leave is granted for the third respondent to use the applicant's affidavits filed in these proceedings for the purposes of proceedings in the Magistrates Court of South Australia where the third respondent seeks an intervention order.
2. There be leave to the applicant to bring an application seeking leave to discontinue.
3. There be leave to discontinue the proceedings against all respondents.
4. There be liberty to the third and fourth respondent to apply as to any order as to costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

COLVIN J: 1 Mr Rana has brought defamation proceedings in this court against Dr Duffy. He also seeks to maintain those proceedings against other respondents. Dr Duffy alleges that the bringing of the proceedings is part of a campaign of harassment by Mr Rana. Dr Duffy has commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court of South Australia in which she seeks an intervention order. She seeks to refer to the contents of affidavits sworn by Mr Rana and filed in these proceedings in support of her application for an intervention order. 2 It is somewhat unclear as to the extent to which it may be said that particular affidavits filed in these proceedings have been read in open court. I do not need to go into the reasons why that is the case. In those circumstances, an issue arises as to whether leave should be given to Dr Duffy to refer to the affidavits in the Magistrates Court proceedings, having regard to the principles stated in Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125. Jackson J summarised the issues that may bear upon whether such leave may be required in Roufeil v Fiore, in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Peter Andrew Fiore (No 4) [2020] FCA 1458. 3 I am satisfied, on the affidavit evidence that is before me, that it is appropriate for leave to be given to refer to the affidavit material. It should be leave that is given in general terms, notwithstanding that the application seeks to have leave to refer to particular parts of the affidavit materials. 4 The leave should be given in general terms because it may be appropriate and necessary if, in due course, the documents are received in the Magistrates Court, for reference to be made to other parts of those documents in order to understand what can be concluded from them. Of course, even though leave is given, it will be entirely a matter for the magistrate as to whether to receive the affidavits into evidence, and that is a position that is acknowledged by Dr Duffy today. For that reason, I do not propose to make orders precisely in the terms sought in the application, but rather, to give leave to use any of the affidavits that have been filed in these proceedings for the purposes of the Magistrates Court proceedings. 5 Separately, Mr Rana now seeks to bring these proceedings to an end. These proceedings have not been served upon the respondents other than Dr Duffy. There has been an occasion upon which the third and fourth respondents have participated in the proceedings and those parties have appeared on their own behalf. In those circumstances, Mr Rana seeks to bring these proceedings to an end by seeking leave to discontinue the proceedings. As matters presently stand, he would need leave to bring that application. The reason for leave is that I have made orders requiring such leave: Rana v Google Inc (No 2) [2023] FCA 81 at [1]-[3]. 6 I am satisfied that, in circumstances where Mr Rana no longer wishes to pursue these proceedings against any of the respondents, he should be given leave to bring an application in the terms in which he has sought, namely, leave to discontinue the proceedings. I am also satisfied that given the stage of the proceedings, particularly in circumstances where the Court is yet to receive a concise statement of the claims made in the proceedings, that it is appropriate for leave to be given to discontinue the proceedings. Indeed, it appears that Mr Rana could simply discontinue the proceedings against all respondents other than Dr Duffy as the other respondents have not been served. Nevertheless, Dr Duffy and the fourth respondent have appeared on their own behalf at a previous hearing and I will give global leave to discontinue on terms that there be liberty to them to make any application for costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin.