C v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [2004] QDC 147

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: C v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 147
PARTIES: C

Plaintiff

v
QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD

Defendant

FILE NO/S: Plaint 1692/99
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 24 May 2004
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 13 May 2004
JUDGE: McGill DCJ

ORDER:

1.

Pursuant to rule 483, the following questions be separately decided before trial:

(a) whether the words quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim are capable of bearing each of the meanings alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim;
(b) whether the words quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim are capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff.
2. Answer those questions:

(a) the words are capable of bearing the meaning alleged in paragraph 6(d) of the statement of claim, but not any of the other meanings alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim.
(b)
of claim are capable of bearing the meaning
defamatory of the plaintiff alleged in
the words quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of bearing any other meaning defamatory of the plaintiff.
3. Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the plaint, and paragraphs 2(a), 3(c)(iv), 4(a), 5(a)(iv), and 5(b) of the reply are struck out.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – Defamatory Statements – whether
imputations arise from words published – whether
imputations defamatory of plaintiff.

INFANTS AND CHILDREN – Criminal Law – sexual offence against child – publication of report – whether report revealed particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child.

Defamation Act 1889 ss 4(1), 18(2). Children’s Services Act 1965 s 138. Copley v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 18 –
applied.
Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380 – applied.

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 135 – applied.
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934) 52
TLR 581 – not followed.
COUNSEL: R A Mulholland QC and D K Boddice SC for the plaintiff
P D T Applegarth SC and D C Spence for the defendant
SOLICITORS: TressCox Lawyers for the plaintiff
Thynne & Macartney solicitors for the defendant

Some years ago the defendant published in its newspaper an account of the sentencing of a man for an offence under s 229B of the Criminal Code, to which he had pleaded guilty. The account identified by reference to dates the period during which the offence was committed. The man was identified by name and age and in various other ways, including a reference to his being a family man, and that he had separated from his wife. All that was said of the complainant was that she was female, that she was a particular age when the offence began, and, unsurprisingly, that she went to school and had a mother. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the complainant was the daughter of the offender.
On 5 May 1999 a plaint was filed on behalf of the daughter of the offender claiming from the defendant damages for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read C v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd 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: [2004] QDC 147
Decision Date: 24/05/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of C v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, C, and the defendant, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd. The plaintiff, C, brought the action on the basis of defamation, asserting that the defendant had published defamatory statements about them. The court hearing the matter was the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the statements published by the defendant were indeed defamatory and whether these defamatory imputations arose from the words that had been published. The court was tasked with determining the precise nature of the defamatory statements and whether they were capable of lowering the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the words published were the source of the alleged defamatory imputations.

In its reasoning, the court identified the specific words and statements that formed the basis of the defamation claim. It considered the context in which the words were published and the potential impact of these words on the plaintiff’s reputation. The court found that the statements did indeed contain defamatory imputations, which were capable of harming the plaintiff’s reputation. The court concluded that the defamatory imputations arose directly from the words that had been published by the defendant.

The final orders included the requirement that certain questions be separately decided before the trial, pursuant to rule 483. These questions pertained to the specific defamatory imputations and their source in the published words. The court mandated that these issues be clarified and resolved prior to proceeding with the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to rule 483, the following questions be separately decided before trial:

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:	C v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 147
PARTIES:	C

(a)	whether the words quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim are capable of bearing each of the meanings alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim;
(b)	whether the words quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim are capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff.

CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – Defamatory Statements – whether imputations arise from words published – whether imputations defamatory of plaintiff.
INFANTS AND CHILDREN – Criminal Law – sexual offence against child – publication of report – whether report revealed particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child.
Defamation Act 1889 ss 4(1), 18(2). Children’s Services Act 1965 s 138. Copley v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 18 –
applied.
Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380 – applied.
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 135 – applied.
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934) 52 TLR 581 – not followed.
COUNSEL:	R A Mulholland QC and D K Boddice SC for the plaintiff P D T Applegarth SC and D C Spence for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	TressCox Lawyers for the plaintiff Thynne & Macartney solicitors for the defendant