Case: Dow Jones &amp; Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 ; (2002) 210 CLR 575 
Outcome: considered
Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ said in Dow Jones &amp; Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 ; (2002) 210 CLR 575 at 604 [36] : 'Clearly, the common law favours the resolution of particular disputes between parties by the bringing of a single action rather than successive proceedings. The principles of res judicata ( Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22 ; (1950) 81 CLR 446), issue estoppel ( Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23 ; (1939) 62 CLR 464), and what has come to be known as Anshun estoppel (Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45 ; (1981) 147 CLR 589), all find their roots in that policy. ...Effect can be given to that policy by the application of well-established principles preventing vexation by separate suits ... .' Of course, the proceedings in this Court raise a separate cause of action, namely under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), from the common law and statutory causes of action in defamation the subject of the two Victorian Supreme Court proceedings. The only common party in each set of proceedings is the Dairy itself. On the other hand, if all proceedings brought by the Dairy based on Mr Kinnear's letter of 23 November 2004 were tried in different courts, there could be conflicting findings made on one or more issues common to the two proceedings. That is an indication that there is a single matter or controversy between the parties: Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27 ; (1999) 198 CLR 511 at 586 [141] per Gummow and Hayne JJ. Here, at the present time, Bongiorno J has held that there is, in substance, a single controversy between the parties to the first Supreme Court proceedings notwithstanding that there are two separate matters complained of published by apparently separate individuals with no common connexion other than the fact that the Dairy is the plaintiff against all those defendants. And the Dairy asserts that the second Supreme Court proceedings are also part of that one controversy. There can be no doubt that the concurrent maintenance of proceedings in two different jurisdictions involving the same parties can be seen as vexatious and oppressive within the meaning of the test on which the exercise of the power of a superior court of record to stay proceedings exists. Bringing multiple proceedings with respect to the same subject matter in different courts in Australia was discussed by Dawson, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ in Henry v Henry [1995] HCA 64 ; (1996) 185 CLR 571 at 590-591. They said: 'In Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v The Caradale [1937] HCA 1 ; (1937) 56 CLR 277 at 281, Dixon J observed of that latter situation that "[t]he inconvenience and embarrassment of allowing two independent actions involving the same question of liability to proceed contemporaneously in different courts needs no elaboration". From the parties' point of view, there is no less -- perhaps, considerably more -- inconvenience and embarrassment if the same issue is to be fought in the courts of different countries according to different regimes, very likely permitting of entirely different outcomes. It is prima facie vexatious and oppressive, in the strict sense of those terms, to commence a second or subsequent action in the courts of this country if an action is already pending with respect to the matter in issue (see Moore v Inglis (1976) 9 ALR 509; 50 ALJR 589 and, on appeal, (1976) 51 ALJR 207).' And, in Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR at 587 [145] Gummow and Hayne JJ noted that the bringing of separate proceedings and the joining of different parties would often be important facts in deciding whether there was a single justiciable controversy for the purposes of Ch III of the Australian Constitution . In my opinion there is a single controversy arising out of the assertions made in the letter signed by Mr Kinnear on the letterhead of Wholefoods that the Dairy ought be investigated by Consumer Affairs Victoria, in respect of whether or not it is accurate to say its milk was labelled as organic. The way in which the Supreme Court has treated the first two matters complained of in the defamation proceedings emphasises that it so regards that question. And the Dairy regards its proceedings against the Director in the same light.