Belbin v McLean

Case [2004] QCA 181

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Belbin v McLean & Anor [2004] QCA 181

PARTIES:

AMELIA ANN BELBIN
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
HAMISH McLEAN
(first defendant/first respondent)
DANIELLE HAYES
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 461 of 2004
SC No 5806 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from interlocutory decision

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Muir and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – REPUBLICATION – where the plaintiff/appellant did not allege the republication of defamatory material as a separate cause of action but relied on it as a matter going only to the damages suffered as a result of the original publication – whether the original publisher can rely on a defence open to the republisher

DEFAMATION – PRIVILEGE – ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE – STATEMENTS MADE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS – whether s 101(2) Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld) confers a defence of absolute privilege not only on a person who makes the relevant publication but also on the person who provided the published material to that publisher

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld)
Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld), s 101(2)

Collerton v MacLean [1962] NZLR 1045, cited
Jones v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 364, cited
Laun v Union Electric Co of Missouri 350 Mo 572, 166 SW 2d 1065, cited
Mann v O’Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204, applied
Puntoriero v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (1999) 199 CLR 575, distinguished
Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd v Parkinson [1892] 1 QB 431, applied
Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283, cited
Smith v Harris (1995) A Def R 43,861, distinguished
Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Office (Qld) (1989) 167 CLR 45, approved
Timms v Clift [1998] 2 Qd R 100, cited
Toomey v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 173, cited
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497, cited
Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Reilly [1941] VLR 110, approved
Wade v New South Wales Rutile Mining Co Pty Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 177, distinguished
Watson v McEwan [1905] AC 480, approved

COUNSEL:

D R Cooper SC for the appellant
P D T Applegarth SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Flower & Hart for the appellant
Crown Solicitor for the respondents

  1. JA:WILLIAMS  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir J and I agree with what he has said therein and the order proposed.

  1. MUIR J:  The appellant appeals against an order of a judge in applications refusing the appellant’s application to strike out sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 8 of the respondent’s fourth amended defence.

  1. The appeal, potentially, raises these issues:

(1)        Whether the original publisher of defamatory matter…

Continue reading Belbin v McLean

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Belbin v McLean [2004] QCA 181
Case
[2004] QCA 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Belbin v McLean is a defamation case in which the plaintiff, Belbin, sought damages from McLean, the defendant, for defamatory statements made by McLean. The dispute primarily revolves around the nature and extent of the defamation, including the republication of the material and the applicability of absolute privilege. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether McLean could claim a defence available to a republisher if Belbin did not raise republication as a separate cause of action, and whether section 101(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld) confers absolute privilege not only on the person making the publication but also on the person who provided the material for publication. The court needed to determine if McLean, who provided the defamatory material to the original publisher, could benefit from the same defence as the original publisher.

The court concluded that McLean could not rely on the defence available to the republisher since Belbin did not allege republication as a distinct cause of action. Instead, Belbin treated republication as a factor affecting the damages. The court also found that section 101(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld) does not extend absolute privilege to the person who provided the material to the publisher, only to the person making the publication. This decision emphasised the distinction between the roles of the publisher and the source of the material in the context of absolute privilege.

The appeal was dismissed, and McLean was ordered to pay costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.