Brose v Baluskas (No 3)

[2019] QDC 101

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Brose v Baluskas & Ors (No 3) [2019] QDC 101
PARTIES:	TRACEY ANN BROSE (Plaintiff)
v
DONNA JOY BALUSKAS (First Defendant)
and
MIGUEL BALUSKAS (Second Defendant)
and
TRUDIE ARNOLD (Third Defendant)
and
IAN MARTIN (Fourth Defendant)
and
KERRI ERVIN (Fifth Defendant)
and
LAURA LAWSON (Sixth Defendant)
and
CHARMAINE PROUDLOCK (Seventh Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D148 of 2016
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application by the first and second defendants for

- leave to re-plead defences of justification, qualified
privilege and honest opinion; and

- for leave to withdraw admissions; and

- to strike out parts of the amended statement of claim
and;

- for orders for the plaintiff to provide further and better
particulars.

ORIGINATING 
COURT: 

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON: 

21 June 2019

DELIVERED AT: 

Southport

HEARING DATE: 

17 May 2019; 24 May 2019

JUDGE: 

Kent QC DCJ

ORDER: 

[1]	The defendants’ second further amended defence, filed 26 October 2018 without leave, is struck out insofar as it pleads any matters for which leave was required pursuant to the court’s orders of 5 October 2018;
[2]	The defendants’ applications in relation to striking out portions of the Amended Statement of Claim, withdrawal of admissions and orders for further and better particulars are dismissed;
[3]	The first defendant’s application for leave to deliver an amended defence pleading justification, qualified privilege and honest opinion is dismissed;
[4]	The second defendant’s application for leave to deliver an amended defence pleading qualified privilege and honest opinion is dismissed;
[5]	The second defendant’s application for leave to deliver an amended defence pleading justification is allowed, only insofar as pleaded in paragraphs 43A – 43F and 43V of the draft amended defence;
[6]	Subject to submissions, the first defendant should pay the plaintiff’s costs of the applications, and the second defendant should pay 75% of the plaintiff’s costs;
[7]	Once pleadings are closed, the matter is to be treated as though a request for trial date had been filed, that is, the parties may only amend a pleading, request particulars or make an application in the proceeding with the court’s leave.

CATCHWORDS: 

DEFAMATION – JUSTIFICATION – GENERALLY – WHETHER PLEA ESTABLISHED – Where the defendants have re-pleaded their defence three times, once with the assistance of legal representation – Where the first further amended defences were struck out – where the defendants were prevented from re-pleading justification without leave – where the unrepresented defendants filed second further amended defences in defiance of that order – where the defendants have new legal representatives – Whether leave should be granted to 1st and 2nd defendants to plead the

defence of justification.

DEFAMATION – OTHER DEFENCES – MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES – Where the defendants have re-pleaded their defence three times, once with the assistance of legal representation – Where the first further amended defences were struck out – where the defendants were prevented from re-pleading qualified privilege without leave – where the unrepresented defendants filed second further amended defences in defiance of that order – where…