Ghosh v NBN Limited - [2014] QCA 53

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ghosh & Anor v NBN Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 53

PARTIES:

RATNA GHOSH
(first appellant)
BHASKAR BANDYOPADHYAY
(second appellant)
v
NBN LIMITED
ACN 000 232 486
(first respondent)
NEWS LIMITED
ACN 007 871 178
(second respondent)
GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
ACN 009 696 511
(third respondent)
KERRYN ANKER
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6628 of 2013
SC No 13616 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – GENERALLY – where the appellants filed a claim and statement of claim in which they alleged that, the first and second respondents had published matter defamatory of them, the third respondent had published other matter defamatory of them and that the fourth respondent had published other matter defamatory of them – where the only step in the proceedings taken after the filing and service of the claim and statement of claim was the filing by the appellants of an application seeking that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court of New South Wales – where the primary judge dismissed the application – where r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides that if no step has been taken in a proceeding for two years from the time the last step was taken, a new step may not be taken without an order of the court – where no application under r 389(2) was made – whether the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) prohibited the appellants’ application

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – where the appellants applied to transfer proceedings to the District Court of NSW – where under s 13 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld), no appeal lies from a decision of the Court in relation to a decision whether or not to transfer a proceeding – where s 13 provides only for transfers of matters from one state supreme court to another – whether the application to transfer should be allowed

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld), s 13
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 389(2)

COUNSEL:

The appellants appeared on their own behalf
R J Anderson for the first, second and third respondents
No appearance for the fourth respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellants appeared on their own behalf
Johnson Winter & Slattery for the first respondent
Bennett & Philp Lawyers for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the fourth respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the order he proposes.

Grounds of appeal

[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 Ghosh v NBN Limited

Details

AGLC: Ghosh v NBN Limited [2014] QCA 53
Case: [2014] QCA 53
Decision Date: 21 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ghosh v NBN Limited, the appellants filed a claim and statement of claim alleging defamation against the first, second, third, and fourth respondents. They sought to transfer the proceedings from the Supreme Court of Queensland to the District Court of New South Wales. The primary judge dismissed the application, and the appellants sought an appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) prohibited the appellants' application and whether the application to transfer should be allowed under s 13 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld). The court found that the appellants had failed to make an application under r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) within the required timeframe, and that no appeal lay from the decision of the Court in relation to a decision whether or not to transfer a proceeding. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court considered the provisions of r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and held that the appellants' application was prohibited as no step had been taken in the proceedings for two years from the time the last step was taken. The court also found that s 13 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld) only provided for transfers of matters from one state supreme court to another and did not apply to the transfer of proceedings from the Supreme Court of Queensland to the District Court of New South Wales. The court held that the appellants' application to transfer proceedings was not allowable and dismissed the appeal with costs. The court did not grant the relief sought by the appellants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	Ghosh & Anor v NBN Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 53
PARTIES:	RATNA GHOSH (first appellant) BHASKAR BANDYOPADHYAY (second appellant) v NBN LIMITED ACN 000 232 486 (first respondent) NEWS LIMITED ACN 007 871 178 (second respondent) GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD ACN 009 696 511 (third respondent) KERRYN ANKER (fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6628 of 2013 SC No 13616 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 March 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – GENERALLY – where the appellants filed a claim and statement of claim in which they alleged that, the first and second respondents had published matter defamatory of them, the third respondent had published other matter defamatory of them and that the fourth respondent had published other matter defamatory of them – where the only step in the proceedings taken after the filing and service of the claim and statement of claim was the filing by the appellants of an application seeking that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court of New South Wales – where the primary judge dismissed the application – where r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides that if no step has been taken in a proceeding for two years from the time the last step was taken, a new step may not be taken without an order of the court – where no application under r 389(2) was made – whether the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) prohibited the appellants’ application APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – where the appellants applied to transfer proceedings to the District Court of NSW – where under s 13 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld), no appeal lies from a decision of the Court in relation to a decision whether or not to transfer a proceeding – where s 13 provides only for transfers of matters from one state supreme court to another – whether the application to transfer should be allowed Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Qld), s 13 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 389(2)
COUNSEL:	The appellants appeared on their own behalf R J Anderson for the first, second and third respondents No appearance for the fourth respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellants appeared on their own behalf Johnson Winter & Slattery for the first respondent Bennett & Philp Lawyers for the second and third respondents No appearance for the fourth respondent