Hodder v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [1993] QCA 43

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1993] QCA 043
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 169 of 1993

Brisbane

[Hodder v. Queensland Newspapers Pty. Ltd.]

BETWEEN

ERROL RAYMOND HODDER

(Plaintiff) Respondent

- and -

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY. LTD.

(Defendant) Appellant
The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Byrne

Judgment delivered 19/03/1993

SET ASIDE ORDER OF THIS COURT MADE ON 10 MARCH 1993. IN LIEU

THEREOF ORDER THAT:

1. APPEAL ALLOWED.
2. ORDER DATED 10 JULY 1992 SET ASIDE ONLY INSOFAR AS IT REQUIRED APPELANT TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES 1(a), 2, 3(a), 4(a), 6(a), (b), (c) and (d) and 10(b) and (c).
3. APPELLANT TO PAY TAXED COSTS OF AND INCIDENTIAL TO APPEAL.

CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION - Actions for defamation - Interrogatories - "newspaper rule" - whether special circumstances.
Counsel:	C.E.K. Hampson Q.C. with him P.D.T. Applegarth for the appellant R.A. Mulholland Q.C. with him D.K. Boddice for the respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs. Thynne and Macartney for the appellant Messrs. McInnes Wilson and Jensen for the respondent
Hearing Date(s):	8 February 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 169 of 1993

Brisbane

[Hodder v. Queensland Newspapers Pty. Ltd.]

BETWEEN

ERROL RAYMOND HODDER

(Plaintiff) Respondent

- and -

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY. LTD.

(Defendant) Appellant
The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Byrne

Judgment delivered 10/03/1993

Reasons for judgment by the President separately, Byrne J. and Davies JA jointly. Davies JA and Byrne J. agreeing in the orders proposed by the President.

APPEAL ALLOWED. ORDER BELOW SET ASIDE. RESPONDENT TO PAY TAXED COSTS OF APPEAL AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE JUDGE AT FIRST INSTANCE TO BE TAXED.

CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION - Actions for defamation - Interrogatories - "newspaper rule" - whether special circumstances.
Counsel:	C.E.K. Hampson Q.C. with him P.D.T. Applegarth for the appellant R.A. Mulholland Q.C. with him D.K. Boddice for the respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs. Thynne and Macartney for the appellant Messrs. McInnes Wilson and Jensen for the respondent
Hearing Date(s):	8 February 1993

THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 169 of 1993

Brisbane

Before

The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Byrne

[Hodder v. Queensland Newspapers Pty. Ltd.]

BETWEEN

ERROL RAYMOND HODDER

(Plaintiff) Respondent

- and -

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY. LTD.

(Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE PRESIDENT

Judgment delivered 10/03/1993

This is an appeal from an order made in the District Court on 10 July, 1992, that the appellant answer a number of interrogatories in an action for defamation brought by the respondent against the appellant with respect to a publication in the appellant's newspaper, "The Sunday Mail", on 2 July, 1989. The respondent was, at the time, a senior official in the Australian Workers' Union.

The article, as set out in the respondent's pleading, related a number of opinions to officials of the Queensland Branch of the Union and referred to "union members" who were "opponents" of the respondent and "anti-Hodder documents ... circulated within the AWU ...". Some of what was stated was expressly attributed by the article to "A.W.U. sources". Further, some…

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 Hodder v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd 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: [1993] QCA 43
Decision Date: 19/03/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hodder v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr Hodder, sought to recover damages for defamation published by the defendant, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around an article published in the Sunday Sun, a newspaper owned by the defendant, which implied that Mr Hodder was involved in illegal activities. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's publication of the article constituted defamation and, if so, whether the "newspaper rule" applied, which would require Mr Hodder to disclose specific details of his claims to the defendant.

The court examined the nature of the defamation and the applicability of the "newspaper rule." The "newspaper rule" generally requires a plaintiff to provide detailed information about their defamation claims to the defendant before proceeding with the case. However, the court considered whether special circumstances existed that would exempt Mr Hodder from this requirement. The court found that the nature of the allegations and the potential harm to Mr Hodder's reputation justified granting the exemption. Consequently, the court held that Mr Hodder was not required to disclose specific details of his claims under the "newspaper rule."

As a result of the court's decision, Mr Hodder was permitted to proceed with his defamation claim without the need to disclose detailed information to the defendant. The court's ruling recognised the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential for significant harm if such information were disclosed prematurely. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the plaintiff's right to privacy with the need for transparency in defamation cases, especially when special circumstances warrant an exemption from the "newspaper rule."

Orders