Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd v Fischer - [2025] QDC 25

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd v Fischer [2025] QDC 25
PARTIES: DEEP CYCLE SYSTEMS PTY LTD
ACN 611 396 591
(Plaintiff)
v
STEFAN FISCHER
(Defendant)
FILE NO: 1169 of 2024
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Separate question hearing.
ORIGINATING Brisbane District Court.
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 11 March 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 14 October 2024
JUDGE: Byrne KC DCJ
ORDERS:

1. The plaintiff is not an excluded corporation for the
purposes of s. 9 of the Defamation Act 2005.
2.        The defendant is to file and serve written submissions
as to costs, not exceeding five pages excluding any
further material to be relied on for the purposes of
those submissions, on or before 4.00pm on 25 March
2025, with a view to the issue being determined on the
papers.
3.        If the defendant contends that an oral hearing is
required, those submissions must outline why an oral
hearing is required.
4.        The plaintiff is to file and serve written submissions
as to costs, not exceeding five pages excluding any
further material to be relied on for the purposes of
those submissions, on or before 4.00pm on 1 April 2025, with a view to the issue being determined on the
papers.
5.        If the plaintiff contends that an oral hearing is
required, those submissions must outline why an oral
hearing is required.
6.        The defendant is to file and serve any reply, not
exceeding three pages, on or before 4.00pm on 7 April
2025.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – PARTIES – WHO MAY SUE – where the
defendant has successfully applied for determination as to
whether the plaintiff is an excluded corporation under s.
9(2)(b) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – where the
plaintiff’s sole director is also the sole director of two other
entities – whether the plaintiff has fewer than 10 employees
and is not an associated entity under s. 50AAA of the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
LEGISLATION: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s. 50AAA.
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s. 9.
CASES: Aaren Pty Ltd trading as Price Beat Travel v Arya [2020]
NSWDC 657.
Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2014)
88 NSWLR 421.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Priority Matters Pty Ltd & Anor
[2016] FCCA 1474
COUNSEL: Ms. L. Brabazon for the plaintiff.
Mr. J. Castelan for the defendant.
SOLICITORS: Twomey Dispute Lawyers for the plaintiff.
Australian Law Partners as town agents for NetCounsel
Lawyers.
Introduction

On 2 May 2024 the plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking damages in defamation.
On 15 July 2024, after pleadings had closed, the defendant applied for, inter alia,
orders that a separate question be determined, namely “Is the Plaintiff an excluded
corporation for the purposes of section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)?”. On 30
July 2024 that application was granted.
Section 9(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) (“the Act”) provides the definition of
an excluded corporation, subject to the following sub-sections and the definitions at Schedule 5 of the Act. Of present relevance,…

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 Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd v Fischer 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: [2025] QDC 25
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd v Fischer was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd, a corporation, sued Fischer for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that Fischer made false and defamatory statements about the plaintiff to third parties, resulting in damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and business. The crux of the dispute was whether the plaintiff was capable of bringing a defamation action given its corporate status.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was a legal person capable of suing for defamation. The court examined the nature of the plaintiff’s business and its standing to bring such an action. The issue was whether the plaintiff, as a corporation, could claim defamation, given that defamation traditionally involves harm to a person's reputation. The court considered the circumstances under which a corporation could be deemed to have a reputation and thus be capable of bringing a defamation claim.

The court found that the plaintiff, being a corporation, could indeed bring a defamation action if it could be shown that the statements affected its business reputation. The court reasoned that a corporation could suffer harm to its reputation in the eyes of the public, which could translate into tangible business losses. The court noted that while defamation is traditionally a personal claim, there were exceptions where corporations could claim damages for defamatory statements that affected their business operations. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not an excluded entity and could proceed with its defamation claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was not an excluded corporation for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim. The court allowed the defamation action to proceed, permitting the plaintiff to seek damages for the defamatory statements made by Fischer. The court’s decision was pivotal in clarifying the circumstances under which corporations could bring defamation claims in Australia, expanding the scope of entities that could seek legal redress for reputational harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff is not an excluded corporation for the

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.

CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – PARTIES – WHO MAY SUE – where the
defendant has successfully applied for determination as to
whether the plaintiff is an excluded corporation under s.
9(2)(b) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – where the
plaintiff’s sole director is also the sole director of two other
entities – whether the plaintiff has fewer than 10 employees
and is not an associated entity under s. 50AAA of the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
LEGISLATION:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s. 50AAA.
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s. 9.
CASES:	Aaren Pty Ltd trading as Price Beat Travel v Arya [2020]
NSWDC 657.
Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2014)
88 NSWLR 421.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Priority Matters Pty Ltd & Anor
[2016] FCCA 1474
COUNSEL:	Ms. L. Brabazon for the plaintiff.
Mr. J. Castelan for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Twomey Dispute Lawyers for the plaintiff.
Australian Law Partners as town agents for NetCounsel
Lawyers.
Introduction