Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2019] QDC 28

[2019] QDC 28

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JARRO DCJ

BD No 228 of 2018

GORDON JAMES CRAVEN Plaintiff

AND

GLOBE VALLEY PTY LTD and OTHERS Defendants

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2019

JUDGMENT

JARRO DCJ: The fourth and fifth defendants seek an order for security for costs in the sum of $10,000 on account of their costs in the proceeding.

The applicants submit that there is reason to apprehend that adverse cost orders will not be met, namely that the plaintiff, Mr Craven, is impecunious and has already not met two security for costs orders in connection with this proceeding, and one costs order, despite demand for a money order in this proceeding alone.

The applicants submit that there is reason to discount Mr Craven being a natural person, and that the evidence before this court, for the purposes of this application, suggest the claim has been brought to harass individuals, namely the defendants, rather than in good faith, and in doing so, the applicants rely upon an earlier decision made by his Honour Judge Williamson QC.[1]

[1] Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 155 (Williamson QC DCJ)

On 10 August 2018, his Honour Judge Williamson QC, in Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 155, dealt with a similar application for security of costs brought by a number of other defendants and delivered written reasons. I respectfully adopt the background factual matters contained in paragraphs 3 to 18 insofar as they are relevant, and consider it unnecessary for the purposes of these extemporaneous reasons to deal with those matters, unless expressly stated.

I, too, respectfully adopt his Honour Judge Porter QC’s ex tempore reasons of 27 September 2018 dismissing Mr Craven’s proceedings against other defendants. His Honour’s reasons recite the factual matters, and I respectfully adopt them to the extent they are relevant to this application, notably paragraphs 7 to 19 of his Honour’s reasons.[2] Again, I consider it unnecessary to recite the factual matters as identified by his Honour, unless expressly stated in these reasons when dealing with the relevant application before me.

[2] Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 198 (Porter QC DCJ)

Mr Craven unsuccessfully appealed Judge Porter QC’s orders dismissing the action as against the first, second and third defendants.[3]

[3] Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors v Craven [2018] QCA 328

I have reviewed the current pleadings as against the fourth and fifth defendants, and in short, by way of quick summary, Mr Craven is suing for defamation against the defendants arising out of publication on various internet sites which he alleges made statements referring to him relating to litigation and his conduct online, inter alia, as an internet troll. He pleads defamatory conduct as a consequence of those matters. The defence is that, essentially, the proceedings are statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act, and that the defendants did not publish the material, or cause such material to be published.

Rule 670…

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 Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd (No 3) 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 28
Decision Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd (No 3) involved a claim for defamation brought by Gordon James Craven against Globe Valley Pty Ltd and others, with the fourth and fifth defendants seeking an order for security for costs. The defendants argued that there was a reasonable apprehension that Mr Craven, who had a history of failing to meet previous security for costs orders and costs orders, would not meet any future cost orders. They submitted that Mr Craven's claim appeared to be vexatious and not brought in good faith.

The court had to determine whether there was a basis for ordering Mr Craven to provide security for the defendants' costs. The court considered the discretionary factors outlined in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, including Mr Craven's financial position, the prospects of success of his claim, and the genuineness of his proceeding. Mr Craven resisted the application, arguing that he had been falsely defamed and that he had removed some contentious material from his websites.

After considering Mr Craven's extensive affidavits and submissions, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs. The court found that Mr Craven was impecunious, had failed to meet previous cost orders, and had a history of unsuccessful litigation. The court noted that Mr Craven's allegations of untruthfulness against the defendants were not substantiated by evidence and were not relevant to the application. The court concluded that there was a reasonable apprehension that Mr Craven would not meet any future cost orders, and ordered him to provide security for costs in the amount of $10,000 within 28 days.

Orders