Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Favell & Anor v Queensland Newspapers P/L & Anor [2004] QCA 135

PARTIES:

PAUL JOSEPH FAVELL
(first plaintiff/first appellant)
DIANA GRACE FAVELL
(second plaintiff/second appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
ACN 009 661 778
(first defendant/first respondent)
JESSICA LAWRENCE
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10737 of 2003
SC No 4239 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from interlocutory decision

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.   Appeal dismissed

2.   That the appellants pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where parts of statement of claim struck out – whether learned judge applied wrong test to determine whether pleadings should be struck out – where pleadings struck out on the basis that the words used in newspaper article were not capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations to an ordinary reader – whether on a strike out application in defamation a General Steel test should also be applied – whether the proper test was incorrectly applied

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 171, r 293

Bik v Mirror Newspapers [1979] 2 NSWLR 679, considered
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Limited (1983-1984) 154 CLR 87, cited
Farqhuar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380, applied
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways & Ors (1964-1965) 112 CLR 125, considered
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663, disapproved
Murphy v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1969) 43 ALJR 212, considered
Robinson v Federal Capital Press Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 386; SC No 3073 of 1998, 24 December 1999, considered
Vasta v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1991] 2 Qd R 354 cited

COUNSEL:

G Reynolds SC, with A R Philp SC and R J Anderson, for the appellants
R A Mulholland QC, with D C Spence, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Gail Malone & Associates for the appellants
Thynne & Macartney for the respondents

  1. McPHERSON JA:  The question is whether the material published by the defendant is capable of giving rise to the defamatory imputations alleged. It falls to be determined according to the meaning which an ordinary reasonable reader of that material would place upon it. If the answer is that it is not so capable, then the pleading alleging the material to be defamatory is liable to be struck out as disclosing no cause of action.

  1. Whether or not it ought to and will be struck out is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the judge who hears the application. Such a step is not to be undertaken lightly but only, it has been said, with great caution. In the end, however, it depends on…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] QCA 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd is an Australian court decision concerning a defamation case. The plaintiff, Favell, alleged that statements published by the defendants, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, were defamatory. The case involved the striking out of parts of the statement of claim by the learned judge, which the plaintiff sought to appeal. The appeal centred around the judge's application of the appropriate legal test to determine whether the pleadings should be struck out. The plaintiff argued that the learned judge applied the wrong test and that the proper test should have been applied.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the learned judge applied the correct test in determining whether the pleadings should be struck out and whether, in a strike-out application in defamation, a General Steel test should also be applied. The court needed to determine whether the learned judge had incorrectly applied the proper test in striking out the pleadings on the basis that the words used in the newspaper article were not capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations to an ordinary reader.

The court dismissed the appeal and found that the learned judge had correctly applied the appropriate legal test. The court held that the proper test for a strike-out application in defamation was whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, and not whether the words were capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory imputations. The court further held that the General Steel test was not applicable in this context. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. That the appellants pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed 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.