Bates v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [2001] QSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Bates & Ors v Qld Newspapers P/L & Anor [2001] QSC 083

PARTIES: VICTOR WALER BATES
(first plaintiff) AND
WILLIAM JOHN BATES
(second plaintiff) AND
CLIFFORD ERNEST DEE
(third plaintiff) AND
VACIK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED
(fourth plaintiff) AND
VACIK PTY LTD
(fifth plaintiff) AND
WESTERN SKINS PTY LTD
(sixth plaintiff)
v
QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
(first defendant) AND
FIA CUMMING
(second defendant) FILE NO: S 1324 of 1993

DIVISION: Trial

DELIVERED ON: 27 March 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 14 March 2001

JUDGE: Chesterman J

ORDER:1. That the defendants’ application of 19 February 2001 be dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
2. That    proceedings    by    the    sixth    plaintiff    be discontinued.
3. That   proceedings   by   the   fourth   plaintiff   Vacik
Investments Pty Ltd be discontinued.
4. That   the   plaintiff’s    application    to    join    Vacik Distributors Pty Ltd as a plaintiff be dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
2

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER THE RULES OF COURT – AMENDMENT – Where plaintiff has amended the statement of claim without the leave of the court – Whether the statement of claim is a nullity or is irregular

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – Where plaintiffs seek to join a plaintiff after the expiration of the limitation period – Interpretation of UCPR r. 69
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
The Rules of the Supreme Court 1901 (Qld) O.93 r.17
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r. 69, r. 304, r.
371, r. 378, r. 389,
Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173
CLR 231
Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Ltd [1967] 2 QB
729
Hayward v Darling Downs Aircraft Services Pty Ltd [1993] 2
Qd R 153
Perez v Trasnsfield (Qld) [1979] Qd R 444

COUNSEL: Mr. D. Boddice for the plaintiffs
Mr. C. Hampson Q.C. for the defendants

SOLICITORS: O’Shea Corser & Wardley for the plaintiffs
Thynne & Macartney for the defendants

[1] CHESTERMAN J: On 10 July 1993 the first defendant published in the Courier Mail of that date an article written by the second defendant. The plaintiffs claim that it defames them. They allege that the article implicated them in the substitution of kangaroo meat for export beef on a large scale, and implied that they were members of, or were believed on reasonable grounds to be members of, a criminal syndicate engaged in that substitution, as well as smuggling Australian native wildlife and the illegal importation of drugs and gold into Australia. Moreover it is said that the article implied that the natural plaintiffs were parties to murder, as well as the systematic corruption of government officials, and were associates of notorious criminals.

The article may not have been adequately researched. The Courier Mail of
11 September 1993 carried an apology to the first plaintiff “and others” in which it admitted that the article “made certain inaccurate statements concerning Victor…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bates v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QSC 83
Decision Date: 27/03/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the plaintiffs Victor Waler Bates, William John Bates, Clifford Ernest Dee, Vacik Investments Pty Ltd, Vacik Pty Ltd, and Western Skins Pty Ltd filed a defamation suit against Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd and Fiona Cumming, who published an allegedly defamatory article in the Courier Mail. The plaintiffs sought damages for defamation, claiming the article implicated them in criminal activities such as meat substitution, wildlife smuggling, drug importation, gold smuggling, murder, and corruption. The defendants published an apology admitting inaccuracies but maintained they had no grounds to believe the plaintiffs were involved in the alleged activities. The plaintiffs commenced the action on 2 September 1993 but did not proceed with celerity, resulting in the defendants filing an application for dismissal for want of prosecution.

The legal issues before the court involved the validity of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim, the court's discretion to allow the addition of a new party after the limitation period, and whether the plaintiffs' action complied with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court found that while the amendment to the statement of claim was irregular, it did not render the proceeding null. Furthermore, the court held that under UCPR r 69(2)(g), a party could be added after the limitation period if it was just to do so. However, the plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the omission of Vacik Distributors Pty Ltd, the actual entity that should have been included, and thus the application to add this new party was dismissed.

Chesterman J dismissed the defendants' application for dismissal for want of prosecution, noting that the plaintiffs' amendment to the statement of claim constituted a step in the proceedings within the allowed timeframe. The court ordered the dismissal of proceedings by the sixth plaintiff, the discontinuation of proceedings by the fourth plaintiff Vacik Investments Pty Ltd, and the denial of the plaintiffs' application to join Vacik Distributors Pty Ltd as a new plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the defendants to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders