Courtney v Pinnacle Media Group Ltd - [2020] QSC 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Courtney v Pinnacle Media Group Ltd & Ors [2020] QSC 50

PARTIES:

SIMON CHRISTOPHER COURTNEY

(plaintiff)
v

PINNACLE MEDIA GROUP LTD (RENAMED COMPASS MEDIA LTD)

(first defendant)

BRENT FULLER
(second defendant)
CAYMAN NEWS SERVICE LTD
(third defendant)
WENDY LEDGER
(fourth defendant)
NICOLA WATSON
(fifth defendant)
iNEWS CAYMAN LTD
(sixth defendant)
COLIN WILSON

(seventh defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 5727 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1. The application to waive the requirement in rule 70 to serve the proposed eighth and ninth defendants is refused.

2. The balance of the application filed 27 February 2020 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND OF PARTIES – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff commenced defamation proceedings against seven persons residing in the Cayman Islands – where the plaintiff applied to join as defendants two other persons residing in the Cayman Islands – where the plaintiff has not amended the statement of claim to plead imputations proposed to be common to the causes of action against the existing defendants and the proposed defendants and to delete those not proposed to be common – where the plaintiff failed to identify the words in the publication he intends to allege were defamatory and which gave rise to each of five proposed imputations – where the plaintiff failed to provide particulars of publication of the matter in Queensland – where the plaintiff failed to provide particulars of any claim for damages, including compensatory damages, economic loss and aggravated damages – where the plaintiff did not serve the proposed new defendants with the application – whether the requirement to serve the proposed new defendants should be waived – whether the proposed new defendants should be joined to the proceeding

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 69, r 70

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, cited
Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 140, cited
Frigger v Trenfield (No 3) [2020] FCA 150, applied
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, considered
Godden v State of Queensland (2018) 84 MVR 5, cited
Goody v Odhams Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333, cited
Hartnett v Hynes [2009] QSC 225, cited
Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd v Longwall Roof Supports Ltd [2003] QSC 187, cited
Kinsella v Gold Coast City Council (No 3) (2016) 215 LGERA 272, considered
Lighthouse Forward Planning Pty Ltd v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 217, applied

Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd v Sanrus Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 267, cited

SOLICITORS:

The submissions of the plaintiff, who appeared on his…

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 Courtney v Pinnacle Media Group 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: [2020] QSC 50
Decision Date: 27 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Courtney v Pinnacle Media Group Ltd, the plaintiff, Courtney, sought to join two additional defendants to a defamation proceeding already involving seven defendants. The additional defendants resided in the Cayman Islands and had not been served with the application to join them. The plaintiff's application to waive the requirement to serve the additional defendants was central to the dispute. The court had to determine whether the proposed new defendants should be joined to the proceeding and if the requirement to serve them should be waived.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had adequately demonstrated an arguable case sufficient to resist summary judgment and whether the deficiencies in the plaintiff's pleading warranted refusal of the application to join the new defendants. Additionally, the court needed to assess if there were sufficient grounds to waive the requirement to serve the proposed new defendants under the relevant procedural rules.

The court concluded that had the proposed new defendants been served, they would have had the opportunity to consider the application, obtain professional advice, and make submissions. The court found that there was no compelling reason to deny the proposed new defendants the opportunity afforded by the procedural rules. While the plaintiff's proposed cause of action was not deemed to be manifestly groundless, the deficiencies in the pleading and the absence of a contradictor led the court to refrain from concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated the existence of an arguable case.

The court refused the application to waive the requirement to serve the proposed eighth and ninth defendants, finding that they should be given the opportunity to respond to the application. The balance of the application was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

ORDERS:
1. The application to waive the requirement in rule 70 to serve the proposed eighth and ninth defendants is refused.
2. The balance of the application filed 27 February 2020 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

1. The application to waive the requirement in rule 70 to serve the proposed eighth and ninth defendants is refused.

2. The balance of the application filed 27 February 2020 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

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

Had they been served, each of the proposed new defendants would have had an opportunity to consider the application, obtain professional advice about it and make submissions to the court. They may have raised some of the considerations canvassed above. They may have raise additional points and matters specific to their respective positions. I am not satisfied that there is any good reason for them to be denied the opportunity to do so, which rule 70(2) otherwise affords them.Conclusion To be clear, I have not concluded that the whole of the proposed cause of action is “so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed”, “manifestly groundless” or “so manifestly faulty that it does not admit of argument”.[43] Whether any publication of the 29 April 2019 news article entitles the plaintiff to recover any damages for defamation from the proposed new defendants in this court is a question for another day. However, the deficiencies in the proposed pleading and the absence of any proper contradictor, have led me to refrain from concluding that the plaintiff has “demonstrate[d] the existence of an arguable case, and one that is sufficient to resist the entry of summary judgment by the party sought to be joined.”[44][43]General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129 (Barwick CJ).[44]Kinsella v Gold Coast City Council (No 3) (2016) 215 LGERA 272 at 278 [13] (Burns J).Disposition The application to waive the requirement to serve the proposed eighth and ninth defendants is refused. The balance of the application filed 27 February 2020 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Courtney v Pinnacle Media Group Ltd & Ors [2020] QSC 50
PARTIES:	SIMON CHRISTOPHER COURTNEY (plaintiff) v PINNACLE MEDIA GROUP LTD (RENAMED COMPASS MEDIA LTD) (first defendant) BRENT FULLER (second defendant) CAYMAN NEWS SERVICE LTD (third defendant) WENDY LEDGER (fourth defendant) NICOLA WATSON (fifth defendant) iNEWS CAYMAN LTD (sixth defendant) COLIN WILSON (seventh defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 5727 of 2019
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGE:	Bradley J
ORDER:	The order of the Court is that: 1. The application to waive the requirement in rule 70 to serve the proposed eighth and ninth defendants is refused. 2. The balance of the application filed 27 February 2020 is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND OF PARTIES – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff commenced defamation proceedings against seven persons residing in the Cayman Islands – where the plaintiff applied to join as defendants two other persons residing in the Cayman Islands – where the plaintiff has not amended the statement of claim to plead imputations proposed to be common to the causes of action against the existing defendants and the proposed defendants and to delete those not proposed to be common – where the plaintiff failed to identify the words in the publication he intends to allege were defamatory and which gave rise to each of five proposed imputations – where the plaintiff failed to provide particulars of publication of the matter in Queensland – where the plaintiff failed to provide particulars of any claim for damages, including compensatory damages, economic loss and aggravated damages – where the plaintiff did not serve the proposed new defendants with the application – whether the requirement to serve the proposed new defendants should be waived – whether the proposed new defendants should be joined to the proceeding Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 69, r 70 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, cited Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 140, cited Frigger v Trenfield (No 3) [2020] FCA 150, applied General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, considered Godden v State of Queensland (2018) 84 MVR 5, cited Goody v Odhams Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333, cited *Hartnett v Hynes* [2009] QSC 225, cited Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd v Longwall Roof Supports Ltd [2003] QSC 187, cited Kinsella v Gold Coast City Council (No 3) (2016) 215 LGERA 272, considered Lighthouse Forward Planning Pty Ltd v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 217, applied Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd v Sanrus Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 267, cited
SOLICITORS:	The submissions of the plaintiff, who appeared on his…