Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McPherson JA and Fryberg J concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting
ORDERS:
Appeal allowed with costs assessed on the standard basis against the respondent defendants. 1.
Set aside so much of the order made on 24 December 2003 as ordered that paragraphs 12(a) and 13(a) of the further amended statement of claim be struck out.2.
Set aside paragraph 3 of the order made on 15 March 2004, and reserve the costs under that paragraph for further consideration. 3.
CATCHWORDS:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE LEGISLATURE – PRIVILEGES - PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS - in defamation action the plaintiff pleaded that an allegedly defamatory letter sent by defendants to Minister was tabled and read in parliament – whether by relying on republication in parliament for the purpose of increasing the amount of damages claimed the plaintiff impeached or questioned the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament, contrary to s 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act2001
[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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Erglis v Buckley [2004] QCA 223
Case
[2004] QCA 223
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Erglis v Buckley, the plaintiff sued the defendants for defamation over an allegedly defamatory letter sent to the Minister. The plaintiff argued that by relying on the republication of the letter in parliament to increase the amount of damages claimed, they questioned the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament, contrary to section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. The defendants appealed the decision of the lower court, which found in favour of the plaintiff. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's reliance on the republication in parliament constituted an impeachment of the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament.
The court found that the plaintiff's reliance on the republication in parliament did not amount to an impeachment of the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages was not based on the republication in parliament, but rather on the original publication of the letter. The court found that the plaintiff's reliance on the republication in parliament was incidental to their claim for damages, and did not amount to an impeachment of the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament. The court further found that the plaintiff's claim for damages was not based on the content of the letter, but rather on the republication in parliament, which increased the amount of damages claimed.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by the lower court. The court found that the plaintiff's reliance on the republication in parliament did not amount to an impeachment of the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament, and that the lower court had erred in striking out the relevant paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The court assessed the costs of the appeal against the respondent defendants and reserved the costs under paragraph 3 of the order made on 15 March 2004 for further consideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed with costs assessed on the standard basis against the respondent defendants. 1.
Set aside so much of the order made on 24 December 2003 as ordered that paragraphs 12(a) and 13(a) of the further amended statement of claim be struck out.2.
Set aside paragraph 3 of the order made on 15 March 2004, and reserve the costs under that paragraph for further consideration. 3.