Camden v Pujolas - [2000] QDC 15

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Camden v. Pujolas & Others [2000] QDC 015

PARTIES: PERCY CAMDEN (plaintiff)
v.
F.B. PUJOLAS (first defendant)
&
ANTHONY SLEVEN (second defendant)
&
THE CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION (third defendant)

FILE NO/S: Plaint 5079 of 1998

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING: Application in a proceeding

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 18 February 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 19 August 1999

JUDGE: McGill DCJ

ORDER:
Order that the first, second and third defendants file and serve further and better answers to interrogatories numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 and 19(a) delivered on 17 March 1999 for their examination, within 21 days from the date of this order.

Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of court incidental to the plaintiff’s application to be assessed.

Defendants’ application dismissed with costs to be assessed

Leave to the plaintiff to have the costs assessed forthwith

CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – interrogatories – directed to defendant pleading fair comment and qualified privilege – relevant to state of mind and state of knowledge of defendant – whether test of fairness objective only – Defamation Act 1889 ss 14, 16. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 234, 236
Goding v. Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 170 – considered
Pervan v. North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 309 – considered
Kerrisk v. The North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd [1992] 2 Qd.R. 398 - - followed
Goding v. Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1966] Qd.R. 545 – followed
Elliott v. Garrett [1902] 1 KB 870 – followed
Plymouth Mutual Co-Operative and Industrial Society Limited v. Traders Publishing Association Limited [1906] 1 KB 403 – followed
Cauley v. Australian Consolidated Press Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 225 – followed
Palmer v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727 – followed
Makim v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (NSW Supreme Court, 15.6.90 unreported) – followed
Howard v. Nationwide Publishing Service (NSW Supreme Court, 26.2.87, unreported) – not followed
Taringa 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty Ltd v. Brisbane TV Ltd (Queensland Supreme Court, 22.5.98, unreported) – followed

COUNSEL: P.D.T. Applegarth for the plaintiff
M.P. Amerena for the defendants

SOLICITORS: Hopgood & Ganim for the plaintiff
Nall Payne for the defendants

This is an application for further and better answers to interrogatories. The plaintiff delivered interrogatories for the examination of each of the three defendants on 17 March 1999. Answers by the first defendant were not provided until 3 June 1999, and the answers by the second and third defendants were outstanding at the date of filing of the application, on 14 July 1999. That application sought an order that the second and third defendants respond to those interrogatories and sought further and better answers by the first defendant to interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 and 19(a).

Since the application was filed and served the second and third defendants have filed answers which are similar to the answers filed on behalf of the first defendant in that they are, from the…

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 Camden v Pujolas

Details

AGLC: Camden v Pujolas [2000] QDC 15
Case: [2000] QDC 15
Decision Date: 18 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Camden v Pujolas, the plaintiff sought to challenge the defamation claim made by the defendant, who was also the first respondent. The defendant had pleaded fair comment and qualified privilege in relation to the defamation, which was addressed to the state of mind and state of knowledge of the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the test of fairness was purely objective, considering the provisions of the Defamation Act 1889 and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court also examined the cases of Goding v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd and Pervan v North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd for guidance.

The court considered whether the interrogatories directed to the defendant were relevant to establishing the state of mind and state of knowledge of the defendant in relation to the defamation claim. The interrogatories in question were relevant to determining the defendant's state of knowledge and state of mind, and thus were relevant to the defamation claim. The court held that the interrogatories were relevant, and therefore the defendants were required to file and serve further and better answers to interrogatories numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 and 19(a). The court also ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of court incidental to the plaintiff's application to be assessed. The defendants' application was dismissed with costs to be assessed, and leave was granted to the plaintiff to have the costs assessed forthwith.

In conclusion, the court held that the interrogatories directed to the defendant were relevant to the defamation claim, and that the defendants were required to file and serve further and better answers to the interrogatories. The court dismissed the defendants' application with costs to be assessed, and granted leave to the plaintiff to have the costs assessed forthwith. This decision highlights the importance of considering the relevance of interrogatories in defamation claims and the potential consequences of failing to provide relevant information.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the first, second and third defendants file and serve further and better answers to interrogatories numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 and 19(a) delivered on 17 March 1999 for their examination, within 21 days from the date of this order.

Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of court incidental to the plaintiff’s application to be assessed.

Defendants’ application dismissed with costs to be assessed

Leave to the plaintiff to have the costs assessed forthwith

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:	Camden v. Pujolas & Others [2000] QDC 015
PARTIES:	PERCY CAMDEN (plaintiff) v. F.B. PUJOLAS (first defendant) & ANTHONY SLEVEN (second defendant) & THE CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION (third defendant)
FILE NO/S:	Plaint 5079 of 1998
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application in a proceeding
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 February 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 August 1999
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Order that the first, second and third defendants file and serve further and better answers to interrogatories numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 and 19(a) delivered on 17 March 1999 for their examination, within 21 days from the date of this order. Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of court incidental to the plaintiff’s application to be assessed. Defendants’ application dismissed with costs to be assessed Leave to the plaintiff to have the costs assessed forthwith
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – interrogatories – directed to defendant pleading fair comment and qualified privilege – relevant to state of mind and state of knowledge of defendant – whether test of fairness objective only – Defamation Act 1889 ss 14, 16. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 234, 236 Goding v. Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 170 – considered Pervan v. North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 309 – considered Kerrisk v. The North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd [1992] 2 Qd.R. 398 - - followed Goding v. Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1966] Qd.R. 545 – followed Elliott v. Garrett [1902] 1 KB 870 – followed Plymouth Mutual Co-Operative and Industrial Society Limited v. Traders Publishing Association Limited [1906] 1 KB 403 – followed Cauley v. Australian Consolidated Press Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 225 – followed Palmer v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727 – followed Makim v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (NSW Supreme Court, 15.6.90 unreported) – followed Howard v. Nationwide Publishing Service (NSW Supreme Court, 26.2.87, unreported) – not followed Taringa 24 Hour Medical Centre Pty Ltd v. Brisbane TV Ltd (Queensland Supreme Court, 22.5.98, unreported) – followed
COUNSEL:	P.D.T. Applegarth for the plaintiff M.P. Amerena for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Hopgood & Ganim for the plaintiff Nall Payne for the defendants