Erglis v Buckley - [2005] QSC 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Erglis v. Buckley & Ors [2005] QSC 025

PARTIES:

WENDY ERGLIS
(plaintiff)
v
MELISSA BUCKLEY
(first defendant)
and
RACHAEL CRAWLEY
(second defendant)
and
LISA SHEARMAN
(third defendant)
and
ALLISON LOVELL
(fourth defendant)
and
JUDY CUMMINGS
(fifth defendant)
and
REBECCA MANNING
(sixth defendant)
and
JANINE GIBSON
(seventh defendant)
and
KYLIE ASH
(eighth defendant)
and
JACQUI BOE
(ninth defendant)
and
RON MIDDLETON
(tenth defendant)
and
MADONNA FUERY
(eleventh defendant)
and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(twelfth defendant)

FILE NO:

S 2867 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30 November; 1, 2, 3 and 15 December 2004; and 2 February 2005

JUDGE:

Helman J.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – PRIVILEGE – QUALIFIED PROTECTION – REBUTTAL OF PRIVILEGE BY MALICE – Where defamatory letter written by nurses in hospital ward was tabled and read in parliament and published within the ward – Where jury finds that only one defendant acted in bad faith – Where defence of qualified protection fails with respect to that defendant – Where jury assess compensatory damages for publication within the ward at $15,000

DEFAMATION – PRIVILEGE – ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE – STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT – Where defamatory letter read in parliament by a member – Whether defendant can rely on defence of parliamentary privilege – Whether the absolute protection conferred on a member of parliament extends to publication by an informer to a member of defamatory matter which is then repeated in Parliament by the member – Whether the acts of the defendants in composing, typing, printing, and sending the letter were acts of or incidental to transacting parliamentary business – Whether the defendants entitled to the absolute protection of parliamentary privilege – Where the defendants’ entitlement to rely on parliamentary privilege ends after letter submitted to Parliament

DEFAMATION – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF ACTION – Whether plaintiff entitled to judgment against defendant for $15,000 with interest and costs – Where plaintiff ‘substantially failed’ in claim

DEFAMATION – ISSUE ESTOPPEL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - Where plaintiff contends that issues raised by defendants have been determined against defendants in Court of Appeal – Whether defendants estopped from contending the claim is not maintainable

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) s. 16

Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld) s. 101(2), 16, 16(1)
Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld) ss. 8, 9
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 293

Belbin v McLean & Anor [2004] Q.C.A. 181
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 C.L.R. 183
Buchanan v. Jennings [2004] 3 W.L.R. 1163
Gibbons v. Duffell (1932) 47 C.L.R. 520
R v. Grassby (1991) 55 A. Crim. R. 419
Rivlin v. Bilainkin [1953] 1 Q.B. 485
Rowley v Armstrong [2000] Q.S.C. 88
Rowley v. O’Chee [2000] 1 Qd. R. 207
Sankey v. Whitlam (1978) 142 C.L.R. 1
Thiess v. TCN Channel 9…

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 Erglis v Buckley

Details

AGLC: Erglis v Buckley [2005] QSC 25
Case: [2005] QSC 25
Decision Date: 24 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Erglis v Buckley, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamatory statements made against her by nurses employed at the hospital where she worked. The dispute primarily centred on the publication of a defamatory letter within the hospital ward and its subsequent reading in parliament. The court was tasked with determining the applicability of various defences to defamation, including qualified privilege and absolute privilege, as well as the issue of costs and issue estoppel. The jury found that one of the defendants acted in bad faith, leading to the failure of the defence of qualified privilege in relation to that defendant. The court held that the absolute protection conferred on a member of parliament did not extend to defamatory statements made by an informer and subsequently repeated by the member in parliament. The court found that the defendants were not entitled to the absolute protection of parliamentary privilege once the letter had been submitted to parliament. The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages for the defamatory publication within the ward, with interest and costs. The court also determined that the defendants were not estopped from contending that the claim was not maintainable, as the issues raised by the defendants had not been determined against them in the Court of Appeal.

Orders