Dupois v HJK

[2013] QDC 52

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dupois v HJK [2013] QDC 52

PARTIES:

CHARLES DUPOIS

(Plaintiff)

And

HJK

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4189/12

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 February 2013

JUDGE:

Robin QC, DCJ

ORDER:

1.    STRIKE OUT THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN ITS ENTIRETY.

2.    10 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THESE REASONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO RE-PLEAD.

3.    THE DEFENDANT HAVE COSTS ON THE STANDARD BASIS

CATCHWORDS:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r146 r149 r150 r152 r171 r670 r671 – Defendant to defamation claim applies for striking out of statement of claim and for security for costs – Pleading struck out – Deficiencies included failure to allege precise words used in oral defamation, or identify properly persons to whom allegedly defamatory were spoken – Security application adjourned in the circumstances – Court concerned this plaintiff is pursuing the defendant for reasons other than vindicating his reputation.

COUNSEL:

Mr A D O’Brien for the Applicant/Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Boe Williams Lawyers for the Applicant/Defendant

Self-Represented for the Respondent/Plaintiff

1. Two applications by the defendant are before the court. The first, filed 5 December 2012 seeks striking out of the statement of claim pursuant to r 171, the other, filed 11 February 2013 seeks security for costs pursuant to r 670 and 671(h). Both sought costs on the indemnity basis. The earlier application was originally returnable on 21 December last year.

1. Although the defence filed 26 November 2012 and running to eight (double spaced) pages responds in some detail to the original statement of claim with denials of any defamation, it essentially contends that the statement of claim ought to be struck out for not presenting the claim in a way that permits a response.  The application for striking out was filed nine days later.  It was listed by the Registry for a date the defendant’s solicitors found inconvenient; unpleasantness and lack of cooperation characterised the process that lead to its being adjourned for hearing on 28 February 2013 together with the security for costs application.  On that day the plaintiff amended the statement of claim, as he was entitled to do.  Although amendment had been foreshadowed, the defendant was given no opportunity to read and consider the amended pleading in advance of the hearing.  Mr O’Brien relied on his outline of argument prepared in response to the original one.  It makes general points that are still useful; however, the task of the court is to adjudicate upon the new pleading.  This is it:

The claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following facts:

1.          At all material times inter alia, the relevant A Current Affair segment as defined in paragraph two herein is the one referred to:

(a)        The plaintiff also used his former entertainment name Charles Gant.

2.          In late January 2012, the Defendant saw the “A Current Affair” Television Program broadcast nationally after being advised by her sister SJM and formed a view…