Defamation case against Dr Lynn Burmeister’s husband hits legal hitch
The bombshell defamation case levelled at the husband of “fertility Queen” Lynn Burmeister for allegedly giving one of her rival IVF specialists a fake one-star review has hit a legal hitch.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A defamation case launched against the husband of Melbourne’s “fertility Queen” Dr Lynn Burmeister over an alleged fake review of a rival IVF specialist has hit a legal hitch.
A Supreme Court judge on Friday ruled Dr Rachael Knight had taken too long to file the lawsuit against Fabrizio Ippoliti.
By law, civil defamation matters must be lodged within a year of the alleged offence.
Dr Knight applied for an extension of time, which associate judge Melissa Daly rejected, saying she had failed to show valid reasons for the delays in her claim.
The Herald Sun this week revealed Dr Knight had filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Mr Ippoliti, claiming he defamed her by posting an anonymous negative review on a website for rating medical practitioners.
“I didn’t have a very good experience with Dr Knight or Melbourne IVF,” the review uploaded on ratemds.com on April 1, 2018 said.
“Seemed it was a money making venture for the clinic.”
The post came with one-star ratings for staff, punctuality, helpfulness and knowledge.
A rating of five is deemed “excellent” while a one is “terrible”.
Mr Ippoliti denied any involvement or knowledge of the review.
Dr Knight, in applying for an extension of the limitation period, submitted it was “unreasonable” for her to have commenced the proceeding in the one-year time frame as it was an anonymous post that required an international probe — and some $25,000 in legal bills — to uncover who was allegedly behind it.
Court documents reveal Dr Knight, determined to get to the bottom of who the author of the review was, enlisted a California-based solicitor to front a US court to issue a subpoena on Rate MD, who were only able to identify an IP address in June last year.
On August 30, Dr Knight then went to Victoria’s Supreme Court to apply for Optus to hand over the user information of the identified IP address.
A little over three months later, on December 4, a letter from Optus arrived confirming Mr Ippoliti was the holder.
Her lawyers then issued him with a concerns notice on December 18, calling for a written apology and reimbursement of Dr Knight’s legal costs.
He responded on January 13 refusing their requests, saying he did not post the review.
This sparked her lawyers to file the defamation proceeding on February 21.
Lawyers for Mr Ippoliti argued Dr Knight was “desultory” in bringing the proceeding, with several periods of “unexplained and poorly explained delay”.
Associate judge Daly agreed saying there was a “baffling” five-month delay between Dr Knight’s lawyers receiving the IP address and seeking discovery from Optus.
She said Dr Knight and her lawyers must have known “the limitation period was a difficult hurdle to overcome” and therefore should have proceeded “with some degree of expedition”.
“No explanation has been provided for this delay,” she said.
Associate judge Daly said Dr Knight was well-educated and sought legal advice soon after becoming aware of the review, therefore should have been aware of the limitations.
Mr Ippoliti is now expected to make a separate application to the court to dispose of the civil proceeding on the grounds there is no real prospect of success.