Cain v Seven Network (Operations) Limited - [2018] QDC 2

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cain v Seven Network (Operations) Limited [2018] QDC 2

PARTIES:

JOHNATHON CAIN

(plaintiff)

v

SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED

ACN 052 845 262

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4520/17

DIVISION:

Applications

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 January 2018

JUDGE:

Ryrie DCJ

ORDER:

1. The application to extend time is dismissed;

2. The applicant shall pay the defendant’s cost of the application to be assessed on a standard basis or as agreed between the parties.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS – where s10AA of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) provides that an action for defamation must not be brought after the end of one year from the date of publication of the material complained of – whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action within one year from the publication date – whether the limitation period should be extended pursuant to s 32A.

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s10AA; s32A.

Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50 discussed;

Houda v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 1036 considered;

Jamieson v Chiropractic Board of Queensland [2011] QCA 56 considered;

Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175 applied;

Schoch v Palmer [2016] QSC 147 applied;

State of Qld v O’Keefe [2016] QCA 135 applied;

Mowen v The Morning Bulletin/APN and Ors [2013] QCA 36 considered.

COUNSEL:

Ms RM De Luchi for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Mr PL Somers for the Defendant/Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Schweikert Harris for the Defendant/Respondent

Background

This is an application seeking an order pursuant to s32A of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (the Act) that the limitation period for the plaintiff’s (Mr Cain) claim in defamation against the defendant (Seven Network), filed on 23 November 2017 be extended to that date.

In short, Mr Cain’s claim relates to a news broadcasting of alleged defamatory matters about him on its’ network on or around 16 December 2014. The statement of claim sets out those matters at paragraph 3. Mr Cain first became aware of that broadcast on the 16 December 2014 after being told about it, at which time he immediately viewed it himself using the internet[1]. As such, his claim is outside the one (1) year limitation period set out in s10AA of the Act. This application to extend time is opposed by the defendant.
[1] Affidavit of J Cain filed 14 December 2017 at paragraph 12 – Court Document 3.

Preliminary point.

Both parties provided to me helpful submissions (marked Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively) for the purpose of this Application. Raised in the defendant/respondent’s submission was a preliminary point regarding admissibility of evidence as it related to medical reports which had been annexed to the affidavit of Mr Tindall,[2] the solicitor for Mr…

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 Cain v Seven Network (Operations) Limited

Details

AGLC: Cain v Seven Network (Operations) Limited [2018] QDC 2
Case: [2018] QDC 2
Decision Date: 25 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cain v Seven Network (Operations) Limited was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, Seven Network, for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant published defamatory material about him, and he sought damages and other remedies. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's claim was time-barred under section 10AA of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), which mandates that a defamation action must be commenced within one year from the date of publication of the defamatory material. The plaintiff applied for an extension of time to commence the action beyond the statutory period.

The central issue before the court was whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have initiated legal proceedings within the statutory one-year limitation period, given the circumstances of the case. The court considered whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted an extension of the limitation period under section 32A of the Act. The plaintiff argued that he did not become aware of the defamatory material until several months after its publication, and thus it was not reasonable for him to have commenced proceedings within the statutory timeframe. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's failure to commence the action within the statutory period was due to his own inaction and lack of diligence.

The court found that the plaintiff's delay in bringing the action was not due to any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of the limitation period. The plaintiff had been aware of the publication of the material, and the court considered that it was reasonable for him to have initiated proceedings within the statutory period. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time under section 32A of the Act. Consequently, the application to extend time was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to extend time is dismissed;

2. The applicant shall pay the defendant’s cost of the application to be assessed on a standard basis or as agreed between the parties.

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:	Cain v Seven Network (Operations) Limited [2018] QDC 2
PARTIES:	JOHNATHON CAIN (plaintiff) v SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED ACN 052 845 262 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	4520/17
DIVISION:	Applications
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 January 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 January 2018
JUDGE:	Ryrie DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application to extend time is dismissed; 2. The applicant shall pay the defendant’s cost of the application to be assessed on a standard basis or as agreed between the parties.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS – where s10AA of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) provides that an action for defamation must not be brought after the end of one year from the date of publication of the material complained of – whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action within one year from the publication date – whether the limitation period should be extended pursuant to s 32A. Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s10AA; s32A. Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50 discussed; Houda v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 1036 considered; Jamieson v Chiropractic Board of Queensland [2011] QCA 56 considered; Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175 applied; Schoch v Palmer [2016] QSC 147 applied; State of Qld v O’Keefe [2016] QCA 135 applied; Mowen v The Morning Bulletin/APN and Ors [2013] QCA 36 considered.
COUNSEL:	Ms RM De Luchi for the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr PL Somers for the Defendant/Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the Plaintiff/Applicant Schweikert Harris for the Defendant/Respondent