Bruder Expeditions Pty Ltd v Leigh

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bruder Expeditions Pty Ltd v Leigh [2019] QDC 271

PARTIES:

BRUDER EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD
(applicant)

v

TRACY LEIGH
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2380/19

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

13 November and 12 December 2019

JUDGE:

Clare SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.    The respondent is found to have been in contempt of  the order of Sheridan DCJ made on 1 November 2019.

2. The respondent is to perform unpaid community service on the conditions set out in s 103 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and must report to the Probation and Parole office at Rockhampton by 12:00pm 13 December 2019

3.    The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - CONTEMPT –where the respondent was found to have published injurious falsehoods about the applicant on a Facebook page– where the court issued an injunction to restrain the respondent from publishing same or similar statements –– where the respondent published further comments about the applicant – where the applicant sought an order that the respondent be punished for contempt

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS –CONTEMPT - whether the application was deficient – whether the charge was deficient – whether the rule against duplicity applies - whether particulars were deficient

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - CONTEMPT – whether the terms of the order were not clear and unambiguous -whether the respondent knew of the terms of the injunction – whether the publication amounted to “substantially similar” -whether contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt

POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – where a need to punish and deter

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Australian Securities  and Investment Commission v 1Ist State Home Loans Pty Ltd  [2002] QSC 55
Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Motor Sales Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 201
Athens v Randwick City Council (2005) 64 NSWLR 58
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan ( 1965) 39 ALJR 32
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Jorgensen [2008] QSC 91

Costello v Courtney [2001] 1 Qd R 481

Environmental Protection Authority v Truegain Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCCA 204

Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2013) 234 IR 59; [2013] VSC 275

Lade & Co Pty Ltd v Black [2006] 2 Qd R 531

MacGroarty v Attorney-General (Qld) (Clauson) (1989) 167 CLR 251; (1989) 86 ALR 513

O’Connor v Hough [2016] QSC 4
Rockhampton Regional Council v Dubois [2014] QPEC 13

Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525

COUNSEL:

MD Martin QC for the applicants
SW Trewavas for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mills Oakley for the applicants

Australian Law Partners for the respondent

  1. The applicant, Bruder Expeditions Pty Ltd (‘Bruder’), manufactures and sells caravans.  The respondent, Ms Tracey Leigh (‘Ms Leigh’), is the administrator of a Facebook group page called ‘Lemon Caravans and RVs in Aus’.  Last month a jury found she had published injurious falsehoods…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bruder Expeditions Pty Ltd v Leigh 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
[2019] QDC 271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bruder Expeditions Pty Ltd brought an application against Leigh for contempt of an injunction issued by Sheridan DCJ, which restrained Leigh from publishing injurious falsehoods about the applicant on a Facebook page. Leigh was found to have published further comments about the applicant, despite the injunction. Bruder Expeditions sought an order that Leigh be punished for contempt. The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the application and charge were deficient, whether the rule against duplicity applied, whether the particulars were deficient, whether the terms of the order were not clear and unambiguous, whether Leigh knew of the terms of the injunction, whether the publication amounted to "substantially similar," and whether contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the application and charge were not deficient, the rule against duplicity did not apply, the particulars were not deficient, the terms of the order were clear and unambiguous, Leigh knew of the terms of the injunction, the publication amounted to "substantially similar," and contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court found Leigh in contempt of the order and ordered her to perform unpaid community service and pay the applicant's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is found to have been in contempt of the order of Sheridan DCJ made on 1 November 2019.

2. The respondent is to perform unpaid community service on the conditions set out in s 103 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and must report to the Probation and Parole office at Rockhampton by 12:00pm 13 December 2019

3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

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.