DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hallam v O’Connor [2019] QDC 130
PARTIES:
GREGORY JOHN CHARLES HALLAM
(Applicant)
v
LYN ELIZABETH O’CONNOR
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
23 of 2018
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
2 August 2019
DELIVERED AT:
District Court at Warwick
HEARING DATE:
29 and 30 November 2018
JUDGE:
Reid DCJ
ORDER:
[1] Save for admissions, paragraphs 12, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 84, 89, 94, 99, 104, 109, 114 and 119 of the amended defence be struck out without liberty to replead.
[2] Paragraph 2, 4, 7, 34, 38 and 42 be struck out with liberty to replead provided that;
The repleaded paragraph 2 admits that the applicant was a person well known to the public.(i)
The repleaded paragraph 7 contains the admissions relevant to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of claim contained in the original defence of the respondent.(ii)
The repleaded paragraphs 34, 38, and 42 admit publication of the relevant material up to the date of the statement of claim and are limited to thereafter pleading;(iii)
the date on which the publication was taken down; or A.
in the alternative, the date the respondent sought to cause the publication to be taken down but was unable to do so.B.
The respondent serve and file such repleaded defence within 28 days. (iv)
[3] The respondent’s application to withdraw the admissions related to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of claim contained in her original defence is dismissed.
[4] The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the applicant’s application (and of the respondent’s oral cross application), to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
APPLICATION – DEFAMATION – DEFENCE OF HONEST OPINION – where respondent published material on Facebook site and other sites which dealt with issues concerning government in Queensland both under her own name and that of an alias – where some of that material is said to be defamatory to the applicant – where applicant has sued respondent for damages – where applicant seeks to strike out various paragraphs of the respondent’s amended defence.
Brose v Baluskas & Ors (2018) QDC 214
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltdv Manock (2007) 232 CLR 245
D G Certifies Pty Ltd & Anor v Hawkesworth [2018] QDC 88
Fraser v Holmes (2009) NSWCA 36
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Ahmed [2009] 260 ALR 274
Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd v Buckley (2009) 21 VR 661
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O’Shane (2005) NSWSC 164
Kermode v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) NSWSC 646
Pervan v North Queensland Newspapers [1993] 178 CLR 309
Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 53
Woodco Services Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd and Ports Corporation of Queensland [2002] QSC 264
Wride v Schulze [2004] FCAFC 216
UCPR r 171(1)(b), r 444, r 445
Continue reading Hallam v O'Connor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hallam v O'Connor [2019] QDC 130
- Case
- [2019] QDC 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court determined that certain paragraphs of the respondent's amended defence should be struck out without the liberty to replead. These paragraphs included those that were not relevant to the defamation claim or were otherwise improper. Additionally, the court ruled that certain other paragraphs should be struck out with the liberty to replead, provided that the repleaded paragraphs met specific conditions. For instance, paragraph 2 had to admit that the applicant was a person well known to the public, and paragraph 7 had to contain admissions relevant to certain paragraphs of the statement of claim. Furthermore, the respondent's application to withdraw certain admissions from her original defence was dismissed. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs associated with the application and the respondent's cross-application.
In summary, the court struck out specific paragraphs of the respondent's amended defence without the liberty to replead and with the liberty to replead, subject to certain conditions. The respondent's application to withdraw specific admissions from her original defence was dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs associated with the application and the respondent's cross-application.
Orders
Orders of the court
[1] Save for admissions, paragraphs 12, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 84, 89, 94, 99, 104, 109, 114 and 119 of the amended defence be struck out without liberty to replead.
[2] Paragraph 2, 4, 7, 34, 38 and 42 be struck out with liberty to replead provided that;
The repleaded paragraph 2 admits that the applicant was a person well known to the public.(i)
The repleaded paragraph 7 contains the admissions relevant to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of claim contained in the original defence of the respondent.(ii)
The repleaded paragraphs 34, 38, and 42 admit publication of the relevant material up to the date of the statement of claim and are limited to thereafter pleading;(iii)
the date on which the publication was taken down; or A.
in the alternative, the date the respondent sought to cause the publication to be taken down but was unable to do so.B.
The respondent serve and file such repleaded defence within 28 days. (iv)
[3] The respondent’s application to withdraw the admissions related to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the statement of claim contained in her original defence is dismissed.
[4] The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the applicant’s application (and of the respondent’s oral cross application), 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.