SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Erglis v Buckley & Ors [2005] QCA 404
PARTIES:
WENDY ERGLIS
(plaintiff/appellant/cross-respondent)
v
MELISSA BUCKLEY
(first defendant/first respondent/first cross-appellant)
RACHAEL CRAWLEY
(second defendant)
LISA SHEARMAN
(third defendant/second respondent/second cross-appellant)
ALLISON LOVELL
(fourth defendant)
JUDY CUMMINGS
(fifth defendant/third respondent/third cross-appellant)
REBECCA MANNING
(sixth defendant)
JANINE GIBSON
(seventh defendant)
KYLIE ASH
(eighth defendant/fourth respondent/fourth cross-appellant)
JACQUI BOE
(ninth defendant)
RON MIDDLETON
(tenth defendant/fifth respondent/fifth cross-appellant)
MADONNA FUERY
(eleventh defendant)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(twelfth defendant/sixth respondent/sixth cross-appellant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 2451 of 2005
SC No 2867 of 2002DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
4 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5 August 2005
JUDGES:
McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed with costs
2. Cross-appeal by tenth and twelfth defendants dismissed with costs
3. Plaintiff’s appeal against the order for the costs of the trial dismissed with costsCATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FINDINGS OF JURY – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN DIFFERENT FINDINGS – PARTICULAR CASES – plaintiff nurse brought defamation claim against colleagues in the Royal Brisbane Hospital Bone Marrow Transplant Unit Ward 9D regarding a letter that was read in Parliament by the then Health Minister – the letter was composed by certain Ward 9D staff members as a response to Parliamentary criticism of the ward based on information supplied by the plaintiff – favourable judgment given to all defendants except the tenth defendant and the State of Qld in its role as indemnifier of the defendants – jury found the tenth defendant to have acted in bad faith – jury also decided that the defamatory matter was irrelevant to any excuse relied upon by the tenth defendant, but was relevant for the other defendants – whether jury adopted an incorrectly subjective approach in answering this question – whether if the jury got one answer wrong it would cast such doubt on all other answers so as to require a new trial
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IN GENERAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT TAKEN AT TRIAL – WHEN NOT ALLOWED TO BE RAISED – FAILURE TO TAKE OBJECTION – NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – trial judge directed the jury to use the ‘reasonable person’ standard when deciding the relevance of the defamatory matter to any excuses relied upon by the defendants – no objection taken at trial to this direction – whether the judge inadequately directed the jury on this point or inadequately summed up the case as a whole – whether a re-trial can be ordered if no objection was taken at trial to the directions
DEFAMATION – PRIVILEGE – ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE – STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT – s 8 and s 9 of the Parliament of…
Continue reading Erglis v Buckley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Erglis v Buckley [2005] QCA 404
- Case
- [2005] QCA 404
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues the court had to address were whether the jury had adopted an incorrectly subjective approach in determining the relevance of the defamatory matter and whether an incorrect answer on this point would undermine all other answers, necessitating a new trial. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the 'reasonable person' standard for assessing the relevance of the defamatory matter to the defendants' excuses was adequate, and whether the failure to object to this direction at trial precluded the plaintiff from raising the issue on appeal. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge correctly interpreted the parliamentary privilege provisions in relation to the letter.
The court found that the jury's determination regarding the relevance of the defamatory matter was not subjectively flawed, and the inconsistency between the jury's findings did not warrant a new trial. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient, and the failure to object to this direction at trial precluded the plaintiff from raising the issue on appeal. Furthermore, the court upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the parliamentary privilege provisions, finding that the composition and sending of the letter by the nurses was protected by parliamentary privilege, while the subsequent publication by the tenth defendant was not. Lastly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the costs order, holding that the judge had not erred in exercising his discretion. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed with costs, and the cross-appeal by the tenth and twelfth defendants was also dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed with costs
2. Cross-appeal by tenth and twelfth defendants dismissed with costs
3. Plaintiff’s appeal against the order for the costs of the trial dismissed with costs
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.