Durrand v Lawrence - [2025] QDC 129

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Durrand v Lawrence & Ors [2025] QDC 129

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JAMES DURRAND

(applicant)

v

MATTHEW LAWRENCE
(first respondent)

AND

CLAIR LANE
(second respondent)

AND

PAUL LE GEAR
(third respondent)

AND

NICOLE KEEVERS
(fourth respondent)

AND

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(fifth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

DC No 124 of 2024

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2025

JUDGE:

Treviño KC DCJ

ORDER:

1. The originating application is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CONCERNS NOTICES – where the applicant intended to pursue an action in defamation against the respondents - where the applicant served concerns notices on the respondents pursuant to the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – where the respondents contend that the notices do not comply with ss 12A and 12B of the Act.

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) ss. 12A and 12B

Cases:

MG v PJ [2025] QCA 99

Stevens v Birtic [2024] QDC 160

Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558

Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991

Staged Plus Pty Ltd & others v Yummi Fruit Ice-Creamery Pty Ltd and others [2024] QDC 88

COUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
H Clift for the first, second and fifth respondents

B Bilic for the third and fourth respondents

SOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Law for the first, second and fifth respondents

Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the third and fourth respondents

Introduction

Mr Durrand is self-represented. He has filed an Originating Application seeking leave to file a claim for damages against the respondents for defamation along with other relief that is unnecessary to detail. The respondents resist the application because Mr Durrand failed to give them compliant concerns notices before commencing the proceeding in accordance with sections 12A and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
For the following reasons, the respondents succeed in their contention that compliant concerns notices were not given. Mr Durrand cannot commence proceedings for defamation and the application must be dismissed.

Background

Mr Durrand is a high school teacher at a state school in Far North Queensland. These proceedings arise out of events connected to the school where he works. The first and second respondents are teachers at the school. The fifth respondent is their employer. The third and fourth respondents were office holders in the school’s parents and citizens association.
In accordance with orders made by Fantin DCJ on 7 February 2025, Mr Durrand filed an affidavit annexing a draft Claim and Statement of Claim on which he intends to rely should leave be given. That draft Statement of Claim is difficult to understand and does not adequately plead a cause of action in defamation. However, in respect of the first, second and fifth respondents, it appears Mr Durrand’s concerns relate to a report made by the first and second respondents…

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.

Continue reading Durrand v Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Durrand v Lawrence [2025] QDC 129
Case: [2025] QDC 129
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Durrand v Lawrence involved the applicant seeking to pursue a defamation claim against the respondents. The applicant had served concerns notices on the respondents in accordance with the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The respondents, however, argued that the notices did not comply with sections 12A and 12B of the Act, thus challenging the validity of the notices and the subsequent defamation claim.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the concerns notices served by the applicant met the statutory requirements under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) and, consequently, whether the applicant's defamation action could proceed. The respondents contended that the notices failed to include specific details required by sections 12A and 12B of the Act, which are critical to the procedural framework of defamation actions in Queensland. The court had to determine the correctness of these contentions and their impact on the applicant's ability to proceed with the defamation claim.

The court found that the concerns notices did not comply with the statutory requirements, specifically sections 12A and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). These sections mandate that certain details must be included in the concerns notice to ensure transparency and fairness in the defamation process. As the notices were deficient, the court held that the applicant's defamation action could not proceed. Consequently, the originating application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The originating application is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs 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:	Durrand v Lawrence & Ors [2025] QDC 129
PARTIES:	MICHAEL JAMES DURRAND (applicant) v MATTHEW LAWRENCE (first respondent) AND CLAIR LANE (second respondent) AND PAUL LE GEAR (third respondent) AND NICOLE KEEVERS (fourth respondent) AND STATE OF QUEENSLAND (fifth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	DC No 124 of 2024
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2025
JUDGE:	Treviño KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The originating application is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CONCERNS NOTICES – where the applicant intended to pursue an action in defamation against the respondents - where the applicant served concerns notices on the respondents pursuant to the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – where the respondents contend that the notices do not comply with ss 12A and 12B of the Act.
Legislation:	Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) ss. 12A and 12B
Cases:	MG v PJ [2025] QCA 99 Stevens v Birtic [2024] QDC 160 Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558 Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991 Staged Plus Pty Ltd & others v Yummi Fruit Ice-Creamery Pty Ltd and others [2024] QDC 88
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf H Clift for the first, second and fifth respondents B Bilic for the third and fourth respondents
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Crown Law for the first, second and fifth respondents Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the third and fourth respondents