DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Doe v Yahoo!7 Pty Ltd & Anor; Wright v Pagett and Ors [2013] QDC 181
PARTIES:
Gladstone D2/2013
JANE DOE
(Plaintiff)v
YAHOO!7 PTY LTD
(First Defendant)and
YAHOO! INC
(Second Defendant)
Gladstone D3/2013
KERRY GEORGE WRIGHT
(Plaintiff)
v
GEOFFREY PAGETT
(First Defendant)
and
YAHOO!7 PTY LTD
(Second Defendant)
and
YAHOO! INC
(Third Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
Gladstone D2/13 and D3/13
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:
9 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
22 July 2013
JUDGE:
Smith DCJ
ORDER:
1. Application to strike out the Statement of Claim of Jane Doe is granted and the Statement of Claim is struck out.
2. Application to strike out the claim of Jane Doe is refused.
3. Application to strike out the Statement of Claim of Kerry Wright is granted and the Statement of Claim is struck out.
4. Application to strike out the claim of Kerry Wright is refused.
5. Jane Doe’s application to amend the Statement of Claim and for judgment is refused.
6. Kerry Wright’s application to amend the Statement of Claim and for judgment is refused.
7. Actions stayed until the Plaintiffs have complied with Part 1 of Chapter 2 of the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Q).
8. I give the parties liberty to apply.
9. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE PROCEDURE- Application to strike out claims and statements of claim
TORTS- action for breach of confidence- action for breach of invasion of privacy- action for negligence- action for intentional infliction of emotional distress
PERSONAL INJURY- whether Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)applies- whether proceeding is a nullity or irregular
CONSUMER LAW- action for breach of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) and Consumer and Competition Act 2010 (Cth)
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) Schedule 5 clause 91
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
Consumer and Competition Act 2010 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.14
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 359B
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 19
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 38, 44, 122, 123
Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) ss 6, 38, 99, 100
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) ss 6, 7, 9, 18
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 28G, 105
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Qld) ss 52, 75B, 84
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 144, 171
ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364
Boulter v Batten and Anor [2010] QDC 056
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457
Coco v Ord Minnett Ltd [2012] QSC 324
Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [2007] VCC 281
Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2006] QB 125
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd [2010] FCA 720
Earl v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 839
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269
Giller v Procopets (2008) 24 VR 1
Godfrey…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Doe v Yahoo!7 Pty Ltd; Wright v Pagett 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] QDC 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action, whether the statements of claim were irregular, and whether the proceedings were subject to the Act. The court held that the statements of claim were irregular as they failed to provide particulars sufficient to inform the defendants of the nature of the claims. However, the claims themselves disclosed a reasonable cause of action, as the allegations, if proven, could be actionable. The court also found that the proceedings were not subject to the Act, as they did not involve personal injury claims.
The court granted the application to strike out the statements of claim but refused the application to strike out the claims. The court also refused the plaintiffs' applications to amend the statements of claim and for judgment, and stayed the proceedings until the plaintiffs complied with the Act. The parties were granted liberty to apply, and the court reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application to strike out the Statement of Claim of Jane Doe is granted and the Statement of Claim is struck out.
2. Application to strike out the claim of Jane Doe is refused.
3. Application to strike out the Statement of Claim of Kerry Wright is granted and the Statement of Claim is struck out.
4. Application to strike out the claim of Kerry Wright is refused.
5. Jane Doe’s application to amend the Statement of Claim and for judgment is refused.
6. Kerry Wright’s application to amend the Statement of Claim and for judgment is refused.
7. Actions stayed until the Plaintiffs have complied with Part 1 of Chapter 2 of the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Q).
8. I give the parties liberty to apply.
9. I will hear the parties as to costs.
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.