SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Flegg v Hallett [2014] QSC 220
PARTIES:
BRUCE STEPHEN FLEGG
(plaintiff)
v
GRAEME NORMAN HALLETT
(defendant)FILE NO:
SC No 11629 of 2012
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
12 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 September 2014
JUDGE:
Flanagan J
ORDER:
1. Defendant’s application filed 28 August 2014 be dismissed.
2. Exhibits KVJ-4, KVJ-5, KVH-6 and KVJ-7 to the affidavit of Kristopher Volker Jahnke filed 28 August 2014 be sealed and are not to be opened except upon order of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER GENERAL MATTERS – STAY OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – where the defendant applied to have a civil defamation proceeding stayed pending the outcome of a criminal proceeding – where the plaintiff was the Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works – where the defendant was the plaintiff’s Senior Media Adviser – where the plaintiff terminated the defendant’s employment – where the defendant is alleged to have threatened the Director of the Government Media Unit that he would divulge information about the plaintiff unless he was provided another job – where the defendant subsequently held a press conference providing statements to the media which are the subject of the defamation proceeding – where the defendant pleads defences of privilege at common law and qualified privilege pursuant to s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 – where none of the current pleadings plead any material fact relating to the alleged threatening of the Director of the Government Media Unit – where the defamation proceeding has been set down for trial commencing 15 October 2014 – where the criminal proceeding relates to the alleged threatening of the Director of the Government Media Unit pursuant to s 54A of the Criminal Code 1899 – where a trial in the criminal proceeding may not take place until the second half of 2015 – whether any prejudice to the plaintiff in having the defamation proceeding stayed outweighs any prejudice to the defendant – whether any publicity of the defamation proceeding is likely to prejudice any subsequent criminal proceeding – whether the defendant’s defence in the defamation proceeding would prejudice the defendant’s ability to defend the criminal proceeding – whether there is a real danger of injustice in the criminal proceeding if the defamation proceeding is not stayed – whether the civil defamation proceedings ought to be stayed pending the finalisation of the criminal proceedings
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 54A
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 30
Australian Securities Commission v Kavanagh (1993) 12 ACSR 69, cited
Baker v Commissioner of Federal Police (2000) 104 FCR 359, considered
Elliot v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2004] FCA 586, considered
Gypsy Fire v Truth Newspapers Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 382, considered
McMahon v Gould (1982) 7 ACLR 202, considered
Philippine Airlines v Goldair (Aust) Pty Ltd [1990] VR 385, cited
Re AWB Ltd (No 1) (2008)
Continue reading Flegg v Hallett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Flegg v Hallett [2014] QSC 220
- Case
- [2014] QSC 220
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether any prejudice to the plaintiff in having the defamation proceeding stayed outweighed any prejudice to the defendant. The court also had to consider whether any publicity of the defamation proceeding was likely to prejudice any subsequent criminal proceeding. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant’s defence in the defamation proceeding would prejudice the defendant’s ability to defend the criminal proceeding. Finally, the court had to consider whether there was a real danger of injustice in the criminal proceeding if the defamation proceeding was not stayed.
The court dismissed the defendant’s application for a stay of the civil defamation proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff would suffer significant prejudice if the defamation proceeding was stayed, as the statements made by the defendant at the press conference were defamatory and caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation. The court also found that there was no real danger of injustice in the criminal proceeding if the defamation proceeding was not stayed. The court noted that the criminal proceeding related to the alleged threatening of the Director of the Government Media Unit, which was not pleaded in any of the current pleadings in the defamation proceeding. Therefore, the court found that the defendant’s defence in the defamation proceeding would not prejudice the defendant’s ability to defend the criminal proceeding. Finally, the court found that any publicity of the defamation proceeding was unlikely to prejudice any subsequent criminal proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Defendant’s application filed 28 August 2014 be dismissed.
2. Exhibits KVJ-4, KVJ-5, KVH-6 and KVJ-7 to the affidavit of Kristopher Volker Jahnke filed 28 August 2014 be sealed and are not to be opened except upon order of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
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.