Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2005] QSC 260

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Building Services Authority & Anor [2005] QSC 260

PARTIES:

MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY
(first defendant)
QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
ACN 009 661 778
(second defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10119 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2005

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

That there be a preliminary determination pursuant to r 483(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the questions set out in the application.1.

That those questions be answered as follows:2.

(a) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(a) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

(b) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(b) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

(c) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(h) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

(d) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(i) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

That the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 17 (h) and (i) of the statement of claim be struck out, with leave to replead. 3.

That the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 17 (f) and (g) of the statement of claim be struck out.4.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – Where plaintiff alleges defamation in relation to a newspaper article, about proceedings in the Queensland Building Tribunal, printed by the second defendant – where second defendant seeks preliminary determination of certain questions under r 483(1), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether parts of article alleged to be defamatory capable of bearing certain meanings as pleaded – whether various paragraphs of the statement of claim ought to be struck out pursuant to r 171(1)(b), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171(1)(b), r 483(1)

Australian Sports Connection Pty Ltd v Queensland Rugby Union Ltd [2000] QSC 252
Bureya Pty Ltd v Mackay Printing & Publishing Co Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 359
Creek & Creek v O’Malley & Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 122

Jones v Skelton [1963] SR (NSW) 644

Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234

Mirror Newspapers v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293

Sherlex Pty Ltd v Thornton [2003] QCA 461

Wake v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 43

COUNSEL:

Ms D Spence for the applicant

The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the applicant

The respondent appeared on his own behalf

HOLMES J: The plaintiff in this action seeks damages for defamation against the second defendant, a newspaper publisher, in respect of an article concerning proceedings in the Queensland Building Tribunal. (A copy…

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 Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Building Services Authority 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: [2005] QSC 260
Decision Date: 19 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Building Services Authority was heard in a Queensland court. The plaintiff, Jackson-Knaggs, initiated legal proceedings against the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA), alleging defamation in relation to a newspaper article published by the second defendant. The article pertained to proceedings before the Queensland Building Tribunal. The QBSA sought a preliminary determination on specific questions under rule 483(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). These questions related to the capability of particular statements in the article to convey the imputations alleged by the plaintiff, as well as whether certain paragraphs of the statement of claim should be struck out pursuant to rule 171(1)(b) of the same rules.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the interpretation of the article's content to determine if specific words could convey the imputations claimed by the plaintiff. The imputations in question pertained to various aspects of the plaintiff's professional conduct and character, which were alleged to have been tarnished by the defamatory statements. Additionally, the court had to decide whether certain paragraphs of the statement of claim were valid or should be dismissed based on the pleadings.

The court found that the words in question were indeed capable of conveying the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff in several instances. However, it also determined that some of the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim should be struck out. Specifically, the imputations in paragraphs 17(h) and (i) were struck out with leave to replead, while those in paragraphs 17(f) and (g) were dismissed outright. The court's decision provided clarity on the defamatory nature of the statements and guided the plaintiff on which imputations could be pursued further in the proceedings.

In summary, the court granted a preliminary determination on the questions posed by the QBSA. It ruled that certain words in the article could convey the alleged defamatory imputations, while also striking out some of the imputations in the statement of claim. This decision set the stage for the next steps in the defamation case, providing a framework for the plaintiff to amend and proceed with the remaining allegations.

Orders

Orders of the court

That there be a preliminary determination pursuant to r 483(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the questions set out in the application.1.

That those questions be answered as follows:2.

(a) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(a) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

(b) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(b) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

(c) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(h) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

(d) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(i) of the statement of claim?

Yes.

That the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 17 (h) and (i) of the statement of claim be struck out, with leave to replead. 3.

That the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 17 (f) and (g) of the statement of claim be struck out.4.

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 Queensland Building Services Authority & Anor [2005] QSC 260
PARTIES:	MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (plaintiff/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first defendant) QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD ACN 009 661 778 (second defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 10119 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme
DELIVERED ON:	19 September 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2005
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	*That there be a preliminary determination pursuant to r 483(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules* of the questions set out in the application.1. That those questions be answered as follows:2. (a) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(a) of the statement of claim? Yes. (b) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(b) of the statement of claim? Yes. (c) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(h) of the statement of claim? Yes. (d) Are the words pleaded in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim capable of conveying the imputation pleaded in paragraph 17(i) of the statement of claim? Yes. That the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 17 (h) and (i) of the statement of claim be struck out, with leave to replead. 3. That the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 17 (f) and (g) of the statement of claim be struck out.**4.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – Where plaintiff alleges defamation in relation to a newspaper article, about proceedings in the Queensland Building Tribunal, printed by the second defendant – where second defendant seeks preliminary determination of certain questions under r 483(1), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether parts of article alleged to be defamatory capable of bearing certain meanings as pleaded – whether various paragraphs of the statement of claim ought to be struck out pursuant to r 171(1)(b), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171(1)(b), r 483(1) Australian Sports Connection Pty Ltd v Queensland Rugby Union Ltd [2000] QSC 252 Bureya Pty Ltd v Mackay Printing & Publishing Co Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 359 Creek & Creek v O’Malley & Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 122 Jones v Skelton [1963] SR (NSW) 644 Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Mirror Newspapers v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 Sherlex Pty Ltd v Thornton [2003] QCA 461 Wake v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 43
COUNSEL:	Ms D Spence for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Thynne & Macartney for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf