Braun v Hatzifotis - [2021] QDC 263

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Braun v Hatzifotis [2021] QDC 263

PARTIES:

WILLIAM VASILY BRAUN

v

MICHAEL HATZIFOTIS

FILE NO/S:

4647/2019

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 June 2021

JUDGES:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   If the plaintiff wishes to make submissions as to costs it must file and serve submissions limited to 4 pages by 4:00 pm, Tuesday, 9 November 2021.

3.   If submissions are made by the plaintiff, the defendant must file and serve any submissions limited to 4 pages by 4:00 pm, Monday, 15 November 2021.

4.   In the absence of submissions, an order will be made that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application on a standard basis as agreed or to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – application for leave to deliver interrogatories – strike out application – whether leave should be granted

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 30

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 229, r 230, r 233, r 165, r 166, r 167, r 168, r 187, r 188, r 189

Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55, cited
Cross v Queensland Rugby Football Union & Anor [2001] QSC 173, cited
Hansen v Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 44, cited
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (2015) 237 FCR 33; [2015] FCA 652, cited
Kermode v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd(No 2) [2011] NSWSC 646, cited
Makim v John and Sons Ltd, unreported, Hunt J, Supreme Court of NSW, No 15264 of 1988, 15 June 1990, cited
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70, cited
Palmer v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727, cited
Ranger v Suncorp General Insurance Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 433, cited
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Anor [2018] FCA 357; (2018) 359 ALR 473, applied.

COUNSEL:

S Chrysanthou SC for the plaintiff
M J May for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Centennial Lawyers for the plaintiff
Cooper Grace Ward for the defendant

Introduction

This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to issue interrogatories and to strike out parts of a defence.
The Pleadings
The plaintiff and the defendant are both surgeons.
The plaintiff in the proceedings alleges in his amended statement of claim that the defendant has defamed him in a three-and-a-half-page letter published by the defendant, and sent to Ms Bates, a member of the Queensland Parliament and shadow minister for Health and causing her to publish it.
The defendant admits in his amended defence to preparing the letter, and says that he sent it to Dr Robert Finch, the chairman of the General Surgeons Morbidity and Mortality meeting of the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and St…

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.

Continue reading Braun v Hatzifotis

Details

AGLC: Braun v Hatzifotis [2021] QDC 263
Case: [2021] QDC 263
Decision Date: 4 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Braun v Hatzifotis, the applicant sought leave to serve interrogatories on the respondent as part of the discovery process. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the interrogatories were necessary to clarify specific issues in the case, while the respondent opposed the application, asserting that the interrogatories were irrelevant and oppressive.

The court was tasked with determining whether the interrogatories were relevant to the issues in dispute and whether they were oppressive. The respondent argued that the interrogatories sought information that was not relevant to the case and would impose an undue burden on the respondent. The court considered the nature of the interrogatories, the relevance of the information sought, and whether the application for leave was reasonable.

The court found that the interrogatories were not relevant to the issues in dispute and were oppressive. The court dismissed the application for leave to serve interrogatories. The court also ordered that if the plaintiff wished to make submissions regarding costs, they must file and serve submissions limited to four pages by a specified time. If submissions were made by the plaintiff, the defendant must file and serve any submissions limited to four pages by a later specified time. In the absence of submissions, an order will be made that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application on a standard basis as agreed or to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. If the plaintiff wishes to make submissions as to costs it must file and serve submissions limited to 4 pages by 4:00 pm, Tuesday, 9 November 2021.

3. If submissions are made by the plaintiff, the defendant must file and serve any submissions limited to 4 pages by 4:00 pm, Monday, 15 November 2021.

4. In the absence of submissions, an order will be made that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application on a standard basis as agreed or to be assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Braun v Hatzifotis [2021] QDC 263
PARTIES:	WILLIAM VASILY BRAUN v MICHAEL HATZIFOTIS
FILE NO/S:	4647/2019
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 June 2021
JUDGES:	Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application is dismissed. 2. If the plaintiff wishes to make submissions as to costs it must file and serve submissions limited to 4 pages by 4:00 pm, Tuesday, 9 November 2021. 3. If submissions are made by the plaintiff, the defendant must file and serve any submissions limited to 4 pages by 4:00 pm, Monday, 15 November 2021. 4. In the absence of submissions, an order will be made that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application on a standard basis as agreed or to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – application for leave to deliver interrogatories – strike out application – whether leave should be granted Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 30 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 229, r 230, r 233, r 165, r 166, r 167, r 168, r 187, r 188, r 189 Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55, cited Cross v Queensland Rugby Football Union & Anor [2001] QSC 173, cited Hansen v Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 44, cited Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (2015) 237 FCR 33; [2015] FCA 652, cited Kermode v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd(No 2) [2011] NSWSC 646, cited Makim v John and Sons Ltd, unreported, Hunt J, Supreme Court of NSW, No 15264 of 1988, 15 June 1990, cited Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70, cited Palmer v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727, cited Ranger v Suncorp General Insurance Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 433, cited Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Anor [2018] FCA 357; (2018) 359 ALR 473, applied.
COUNSEL:	S Chrysanthou SC for the plaintiff M J May for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Centennial Lawyers for the plaintiff Cooper Grace Ward for the defendant