Erglis v Buckley

[2004] QSC 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Erglis v Buckley & Ors [2004] QSC 062

PARTIES:

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

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(twelfth defendant / sixth applicant)

FILE NO:

SC No 2867 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDERS:

1.   The costs of the adjournment of 3 November 2003 be costs in the cause.

2.   The plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to that part of the application seeking an order for summary judgment be paid by the defendants.

3.   The defendants costs of and incidental to the balance of the application to strike out be paid by the plaintiff.

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the defendants/applicants

Messrs Drakopoulos Black for the plaintiff/respondent

PHILIPPIDES J: 

1. This matter was set down for trial for two weeks commencing 3 November 2003.  On 17 October 2003, de Jersey CJ heard an application by the defendants for leave to amend their defence to plead provisions of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. The defendants also brought an application for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s action was not maintainable because of the operation of s 8 and s 9 of the Act. In the alternative, the application sought to strike out various parts of the plaintiff’s pleadings, namely the further amended statement of claim and the further amended reply. The defendants were given leave to amend by de Jersey CJ, who adjourned the application for summary judgment and striking out to be heard as a preliminary point before the jury trial commenced.

1. On 3 November 2003, the plaintiff’s counsel indicated that, by further amendments sought to be made to the reply, the plaintiff sought to raise a constitutional point in respect of the validity of the relevant provisions of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Leave was granted to make the amendments. As a result of the amendments, the appropriate notices were required to be issued and an adjournment of two days was granted for that to be done and the responses to be received.

1. On 5 and 6 November 2003, the defendants’ application was heard in part, the parties agreeing that it was appropriate that that part of the application seeking an order for summary judgment be heard and determined before the balance of the application.  Counsel for the plaintiff did not seek to argue the constitutional issues at that preliminary stage and also indicated that additional amendments of the statement of claim were required to allege other publications of the defamatory matter in question. 

1. On 10 November 2003, I refused the application for summary judgment.   On 11…