Findley v Morand

In Findley v Morand, the applicant, Findley, sought to extend the limitation period for initiating a defamation claim against the respondents, Morand, who had previously owned and rented out a property to Findley. Findley alleged that the respondents had posted defamatory entries about him on a tenancy database, TICA, in 2011 and 2012, which he only became aware of in 2014. Following Findley's application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), an order was made in July 2014 to remove the entries. Findley now wished to commence defamation proceedings against the respondents, but the limitation period for such actions had expired under section 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Findley sought an extension of the limitation period under section 32A of the same Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the limitation period for Findley's defamation claim should be extended under section 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The court needed to consider whether the circumstances warranted an extension given that Findley had not discovered the defamatory entries until several years after they were posted. The court assessed the reasons for the delay, the diligence exercised by Findley in pursuing the matter, and the overall fairness and equity of extending the limitation period in this instance.

In determining the application, the court found that the circumstances justified an extension of the limitation period. The court accepted that Findley had not been aware of the defamatory entries until 2014 and had acted promptly upon discovering them. The court concluded that it was equitable to extend the limitation period to allow Findley to bring his defamation claim. Consequently, the court granted an extension under section 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), permitting Findley to file proceedings for defamation by 25 January 2015.

The court also ordered that the costs of and incidental to the application be reserved for the judge who would hear and determine any defamation proceedings brought pursuant to this order. This decision ensures that the matter of costs is addressed in the context of the broader defamation litigation, should it proceed.