Dupois v Queensland Television Ltd - [2015] QCA 160

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dupois v Queensland Television Ltd & Ors [2015] QCA 160

PARTIES:

CHARLES DUPOIS
(appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LTD
ACN 009 674 373
(first respondent)
TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD
ACN 001 549 560
(second respondent)
GENERAL TELEVISION CORPORATION PTY LTD
ACN 004 330 036
(third respondent)
NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 008 685 407
(fourth respondent)
KATE DONNISON
(fifth respondent)
GRANT WILLIAMS
(sixth respondent)
THERESE ZUANETTI
(seventh respondent)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 4059 of 2015
SC No 2754 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal
Miscellaneous Application - Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 30 March 2015

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 August 2015

JUDGE:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.

3.   Until the conclusion of the trial of this action and any appeal therefrom, these reasons for judgment not be published on the court website or in any other forum without the prior leave of this Court or a judge of the Supreme Court.

4.   The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the appellant sued the respondents for defamation – where the appellant sought damages for economic loss to the value of $50,000,000.00 – where the primary judge concluded that the expert report filed by the appellant was not admissible on the grounds of relevance and for non-compliance with the rules of court – where the primary judge found that there was no evidence to support the proposition that the appellant had any realistic prospect of success of establishing the economic loss – where the primary judge dismissed part of the appellant’s claim pursuant to r 293 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the primary judge erred

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence in the form of three affidavits – where the evidence was available at the time of the hearing – whether the evidence would have had an important influence on the result of the case – whether the evidence was credible – whether the application to adduce evidence should be allowed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 292, r 293, r 766

Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486; [1960] HCA 42, cited
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, applied
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232; [2005] QCA 227, considered
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332; [1994] HCA 4, applied
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010)…

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 Dupois v Queensland Television 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: [2015] QCA 160
Decision Date: 28 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns a defamation action brought by the appellant against the respondents, seeking damages for economic loss amounting to $50,000,000.00. The case was dismissed by the primary judge, who found that the appellant's expert report was inadmissible due to relevance and procedural non-compliance, and concluded that there was no realistic prospect of success in establishing the claimed economic loss. The appellant now challenges the dismissal of part of their claim and the refusal to allow the admission of further evidence in the form of three affidavits, which were available at the time of the hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge erred in dismissing part of the appellant's claim and in refusing to admit the additional evidence. The appellant argued that the primary judge's decision was flawed and that the additional evidence, if considered, would have had an important influence on the outcome of the case. The court examined the admissibility and credibility of the proposed evidence and whether it would have affected the result.

The court found that the primary judge's decision to dismiss part of the claim was correct, as the expert report was not admissible due to relevance and procedural issues. Furthermore, the court held that the proposed additional evidence would not have influenced the result, as it was either not credible or did not address the key issues in the case. The application to adduce fresh evidence was therefore refused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence was denied.

In conclusion, the orders of the court are that the appeal is dismissed, the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence is refused, and the reasons for judgment are not to be published without prior leave. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.

3. Until the conclusion of the trial of this action and any appeal therefrom, these reasons for judgment not be published on the court website or in any other forum without the prior leave of this Court or a judge of the Supreme Court.

4. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Dupois v Queensland Television Ltd & Ors [2015] QCA 160
PARTIES:	CHARLES DUPOIS (appellant) v QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LTD ACN 009 674 373 (first respondent) TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD ACN 001 549 560 (second respondent) GENERAL TELEVISION CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 004 330 036 (third respondent) NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 008 685 407 (fourth respondent) KATE DONNISON (fifth respondent) GRANT WILLIAMS (sixth respondent) THERESE ZUANETTI (seventh respondent)
FILE NO:	Appeal No 4059 of 2015 SC No 2754 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal Miscellaneous Application - Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 30 March 2015
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 August 2015
JUDGE:	Holmes and Fraser JJA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused. 3. Until the conclusion of the trial of this action and any appeal therefrom, these reasons for judgment not be published on the court website or in any other forum without the prior leave of this Court or a judge of the Supreme Court. 4. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the appellant sued the respondents for defamation – where the appellant sought damages for economic loss to the value of $50,000,000.00 – where the primary judge concluded that the expert report filed by the appellant was not admissible on the grounds of relevance and for non-compliance with the rules of court – where the primary judge found that there was no evidence to support the proposition that the appellant had any realistic prospect of success of establishing the economic loss – where the primary judge dismissed part of the appellant’s claim pursuant to r 293 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the primary judge erred APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence in the form of three affidavits – where the evidence was available at the time of the hearing – whether the evidence would have had an important influence on the result of the case – whether the evidence was credible – whether the application to adduce evidence should be allowed Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 292, r 293, r 766 Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486; [1960] HCA 42, cited Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, applied Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232; [2005] QCA 227, considered Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332; [1994] HCA 4, applied Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010)…