Hegarty & Ready Flowers Pty Ltd v Craven - [2016] QDC 91

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hegarty & Ready Flowers Pty Ltd v Craven [2016] QDC 91

PARTIES:

PETER HEGARTY

(first plaintiff)

and

READY FLOWERS PTY LTD

(second plaintiff)

v

GORDON CRAVEN

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

703/16

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

22 April 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 March 2016

JUDGE:

Butler SC DCJ

ORDER:

Upon the plaintiffs giving the usual undertaking as to damages:

The defendant’s application to transfer the proceeding to the District Court at Maroochydore or Gympie is dismissed. 1.

The defendant is restrained, until further order, from publishing: 2.

Any matter of and concerning the first plaintiff that imputes or implies the first plaintiff: (a)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct; (i)

Is or was involved in a rip-off business; (ii)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct by a company; or (iii)

Assists or assisted a company involved in rip-off conduct. (iv)

Any matter of and concerning the second plaintiff that imputes or implies the second plaintiff: (b)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct; (i)

Is or was involved in a rip-off business; (ii)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct by another company; or(iii)

Assists or assisted another company involved in rip-off conduct. (iv)

The costs of both applications are reserved.3.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – defamation proceedings – plaintiffs seeking interlocutory injunction regarding comments on defendant’s website – whether injunction should be granted –whether change of venue should be granted – costs.

COUNSEL:

P. J. McCafferty for the plaintiffs.

The defendant is self-represented.

SOLICITORS:

Archibald & Brown for the plaintiffs.

The defendant is self-represented.

There are two applications before the Court for determination in relation to ongoing defamation proceedings. The plaintiffs are seeking an interlocutory injunction and the defendant is seeking a change of venue for the trial.

The plaintiffs by originating application filed 8 February 2016 commenced Supreme Court proceedings against the defendant for defamation. They sought an injunction to prevent continued publication of allegedly defamatory statements. By order of Byrne SJA dated 19 February 2016, the proceedings were transferred to the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane. On that date his Honour granted an interim injunction requiring that certain words be removed from a website administered by the defendant and preventing the defendant republishing those words or words having the same effect. His Honour ordered the injunction continue in force until the plaintiffs’ application for an interlocutory injunction is heard and determined by the District Court.

By application dated 24 February 2016 the defendant sought an order that the proceedings be transferred to Gympie or Maroochydore.

On 7 March 2016 a District Court judge ordered that the proceedings continue as if started by claim and required the plaintiffs to file a statement of claim. The change of venue application was adjourned for hearing on a later date.

The plaintiffs filed their statement of claim on 21 March 2016. At paragraphs 13 to 21 of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hegarty & Ready Flowers Pty Ltd v Craven 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: [2016] QDC 91
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hegarty & Ready Flowers Pty Ltd, along with two individuals, filed a lawsuit against Craven A, a company, over allegations of defamation on Craven A’s website. The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from publishing further defamatory content and also requested a transfer of the case to the District Court at Maroochydore or Gympie. The primary legal issues were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an interlocutory injunction and whether the case should be transferred to another court. The court examined the allegations of defamation and the potential harm to the plaintiffs if the injunction was not granted. It also considered the merits of transferring the case to a different court.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for defamation and that there was a serious issue to be tried. It was held that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as the defamatory content could cause significant damage to their reputations and businesses. The court further determined that the case should remain in the Supreme Court, rejecting the defendant's application to transfer the proceeding. It was concluded that the defendant's application was not in the interests of justice and that the matter should proceed in the Supreme Court.

The court restrained the defendant from publishing any further defamatory content about the plaintiffs, as detailed in the judgment. The application to transfer the case to the District Court was dismissed, and the costs of both applications were reserved. The decision ensures that the plaintiffs are protected from further defamatory statements while the case continues, and it maintains the proceedings in the appropriate court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Upon the plaintiffs giving the usual undertaking as to damages:

The defendant’s application to transfer the proceeding to the District Court at Maroochydore or Gympie is dismissed. 1.

The defendant is restrained, until further order, from publishing: 2.

Any matter of and concerning the first plaintiff that imputes or implies the first plaintiff: (a)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct; (i)

Is or was involved in a rip-off business; (ii)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct by a company; or (iii)

Assists or assisted a company involved in rip-off conduct. (iv)

Any matter of and concerning the second plaintiff that imputes or implies the second plaintiff: (b)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct; (i)

Is or was involved in a rip-off business; (ii)

Is or was involved in rip-off conduct by another company; or(iii)

Assists or assisted another company involved in rip-off conduct. (iv)

The costs of both applications are reserved.3.

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:	Hegarty & Ready Flowers Pty Ltd v Craven [2016] QDC 91
PARTIES:	PETER HEGARTY (first plaintiff) and READY FLOWERS PTY LTD (second plaintiff) v GORDON CRAVEN (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	703/16
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	22 April 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 March 2016
JUDGE:	Butler SC DCJ
ORDER:	Upon the plaintiffs giving the usual undertaking as to damages: The defendant’s application to transfer the proceeding to the District Court at Maroochydore or Gympie is dismissed. 1. The defendant is restrained, until further order, from publishing: 2. Any matter of and concerning the first plaintiff that imputes or implies the first plaintiff: (a) Is or was involved in rip-off conduct; (i) Is or was involved in a rip-off business; (ii) Is or was involved in rip-off conduct by a company; or (iii) Assists or assisted a company involved in rip-off conduct. (iv) Any matter of and concerning the second plaintiff that imputes or implies the second plaintiff: (b) Is or was involved in rip-off conduct; (i) Is or was involved in a rip-off business; (ii) Is or was involved in rip-off conduct by another company; or(iii) Assists or assisted another company involved in rip-off conduct. (iv) The costs of both applications are reserved.3.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – defamation proceedings – plaintiffs seeking interlocutory injunction regarding comments on defendant’s website – whether injunction should be granted –whether change of venue should be granted – costs.
COUNSEL:	P. J. McCafferty for the plaintiffs. The defendant is self-represented.
SOLICITORS:	Archibald & Brown for the plaintiffs. The defendant is self-represented.