DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Brose v Baluskas & Ors [2018] QDC 214
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 third, fifth and seventh defendants for leave to re-plead their defences of honest opinion.
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
31 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Southport
HEARING DATE:
On the papers following oral hearing on 18 May 2018. Further written submissions on behalf of applicant third, fifth and seventh defendants filed 24 July 2018. Further written submissions on behalf of the respondent plaintiff filed 14 August 2018.
JUDGE:
Muir DCJ
ORDER:
The third, fifth and seventh defendants’ applications are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – APPLICATION TO RE-PLEAD DEFENCE OF HONEST OPINION – where the third, fifth and seventh defendants’ defences of honest opinion were struck out – whether each of the defendants should be granted leave to re-plead on proposed new defences – whether defence available as a matter of law – consideration of the requirements necessary to plead statutory defence of honest opinion – whether a statement of fact or opinion – whether statement of opinion based on proper material.
LEGISLATION:
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), ss 21, 22, 26, 31
CASES:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 510
Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd (No 2) [1965] 1 WLR 805
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock (2007) 232 CLR 245
D.G. Certifiers Pty Ltd & Anor v Hawksworth [2018] QDC 88
Fairfax Media Publications v Zeccola (2015) 91 NSWLR 341
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Giani v Queensland Television Ltd & Ors [2015] QDC 286
Hanks v Johnstone [2015] VSC 570
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Ahmed (2015) 90 NSWLR 695
The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd & Anor v Buckley (2009) 21 VR 661
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485
London Artists Ltd v Littler [1969] 2 All ER 198
McEloney v Massey [2015] WADC 126
Mio Art Pty Ltd v BMD Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 55
Orr v Isles [1965] NSWR 677
Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] QSC 222COUNSEL:
A Nelson for the applicant third, fifth and seventh defendants
H Blattman for the respondent plaintiff
SOLICITORS:
Mills Oakley for the applicant third, fifth and seventh defendants
Bennett & Philp Lawyers for the respondent plaintiff
Introduction
This is an application by the third, fifth and seventh defendants for leave to re-plead the statutory defence of honest opinion under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The need for such an application arises as a consequence of orders I made on 18 May 2018. On that day, after hearing a contested application by the plaintiff, I struck out a…
Continue reading Brose v Baluskas & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Brose v Baluskas & Ors [2018] QDC 214
- Case
- [2018] QDC 214
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the third, fifth, and seventh defendants should be granted permission to re-plead their defences, specifically to include the defence of honest opinion, after these defences had been struck out initially. The court had to consider whether the defence of honest opinion was available to the defendants as a matter of law, and if so, whether they had complied with the necessary requirements for pleading this defence. This involved examining whether the allegedly defamatory statements were expressions of opinion or fact, and if the opinion was based on proper material.
The court concluded that the defence of honest opinion was not available to the defendants as a matter of law and that the statements in question were not opinions based on proper material. Consequently, the court found that the defendants were not entitled to re-plead their defences to include the defence of honest opinion. The applications by the third, fifth, and seventh defendants to amend their defences were dismissed, and no leave to re-plead was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
The third, fifth and seventh defendants’ applications are dismissed.
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.