Jackson-Knaggs v QBSA - [2003] QDC 298

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jackson-Knaggs v QBSA [2003] QDC 298

PARTIES:

MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS

Plaintiff

v

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY

Defendant

FILE NO/S:

B 3065/02

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Interlocutory application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 July 2003

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – Pleadings – defence – denial of inference alleged by plaintiff – alternative meaning alleged – whether liable to be struck out.

Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81 – distinguished.

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff in person

S J Farrell for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Barry & Nilsson for the defendant.

This is an application to strike out the amended defence filed 9 July 2002. The application is made under r 171, and was advanced on two grounds: that the amended defence had a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceedings, and in the alternative disclosed no reasonable ground of defence and was an abuse of process of the court.

Course of the action

By a claim and statement of claim filed 18 July 2002 the plaintiff claimed damages for defamation in respect of words contained in a press release published by the defendant on 2 April 2001, and in a different press release published by the defendant on 21 May 2001. In relation to the former press release, the plaintiff alleged in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim that the words meant, according to their ordinary and natural meaning, two specific imputations. In relation to the second press release, the plaintiff pleaded that the words used meant, according to their ordinary and natural meaning, four specific imputations.

On 30 August 2002 the defendant filed a notice of intention to defend and defence. The plaintiff filed a reply on 18 November 2002. On 22 April 2003 the plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant provide disclosure of documents. That application came before another judge on 24 April 2003 when it was adjourned to 30 April 2003. On that day a further affidavit on behalf of the defendant was filed by leave, the application was dismissed and the costs of the application including the costs of the adjournment were made costs in the cause.

The defendant advised the plaintiff in writing on 1 May 2003 that the defendant’s defence “will require amendment to plead further matters by way of defence.”[1] It noted that there was a right to amend the defence under r 378, which was correct. On 12 May 2003 the plaintiff advised that he did not have any present intention to amend the statement of claim, and threatened to sign a request for trial date unless he heard from the defendant within 14 days.[2] There was further correspondence between the parties in which the plaintiff was pressing for any amendment to the defence to be made, and on 13 June 2003 he served a signed request for trial date.[3] The amended defence was filed, and presumably…

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 Jackson-Knaggs v QBSA

Details

AGLC: Jackson-Knaggs v QBSA [2003] QDC 298
Case: [2003] QDC 298
Decision Date: 3 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jackson-Knaggs v QBSA involves a defamation claim where the plaintiff alleged defamatory statements were made about them by the defendant, Queensland Building Services Authority. The defendant denied the inference alleged by the plaintiff and proposed an alternative meaning for the statements. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's defence was sufficient and if the pleadings could be struck out.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's pleadings were adequate in denying the inference of defamation and if the alternative meaning proposed could reasonably be considered by a jury. The court also had to consider the applicability of previous case law, particularly Robinson v Laws, in determining the sufficiency of the defence.

The court found that the defendant's pleadings were sufficient to deny the inference of defamation and that the alternative meaning proposed was reasonable. The court distinguished the case from Robinson v Laws, as the pleadings in this case provided a clear alternative meaning that could be considered by a jury. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to strike out the defence and ordered costs in favour of the defendant.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff's application to strike out the defendant's defence, and an order for the defendant to receive costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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:	Jackson-Knaggs v QBSA [2003] QDC 298
PARTIES:	MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS Plaintiff v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY Defendant
FILE NO/S:	B 3065/02
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Interlocutory application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 July 2003
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – Pleadings – defence – denial of inference alleged by plaintiff – alternative meaning alleged – whether liable to be struck out. Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81 – distinguished.
COUNSEL:	The plaintiff in person S J Farrell for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Barry & Nilsson for the defendant.