Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Building Services Authority

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Building Services Authority and Anor [2004] QSC 289

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO/S:

BS 10119 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 April 2004

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDER:

To be determined

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – Absolute privilege – Qualified privilege – Fair comment – Report of judicial proceedings – Tribunal – Whether a “court of justice” within ss 11, 13, 14 of the Defamation Act 1889

Defamation Act1889, ss 11, 13, 14
Queensland Building Tribunal Act2000, s 112

Allbut v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1889) 23 QBD 400, referred to
Barratt v Kearns [1905] 1 KB 504, referred to
Copartnership Farms v Harvey-Smith [1918] 2 KB 405, referred to
Dawkins v Lord Rokeby (1873) LR 8 QB 255; (1875) LR 7 HL 744, considered
Mann v O’Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204, referred to
O’Connor v Waldron [1935] AC 76, referred to
Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Gardens Society Limited v Parkinson [1892] 1 QB 431, considered
Wason v Walter (1868) LR 4 QB 73, referred to

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S T Farrell for the first respondent
D C Spence for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Barry & Nilsson for the first respondent
Thynne & Macartney for the second respondent

1. The application before the court sought orders of two types: orders for answers to interrogatories and orders striking out parts of the defences.  I dealt with the former ex tempore.  These reasons deal with the latter.

The parties and the facts

1. At all material times the first defendant ("the authority") was a body corporate established by s 5 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991.  It consisted of the Queensland Building Services Board, its general manager and his organisational unit.  Its principal functions seem to have been to operate a licensing scheme and an insurance scheme for builders and to procure rectification of faulty building work performed by builders for consumers.  In particular it had power to apply to the Queensland Building Tribunal to conduct a public examination that investigated certain matters specified under the Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000.[1]  At all material times the second defendant ("the Courier Mail") was a newspaper publishing company which published the Courier Mail in Brisbane.

   [1]Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000, s 112.

1. The plaintiff has sued the defendants for defamation. So far as is presently relevant, he alleges that the authority defamed him in an article published on 21 May 2001 and subsequently posted on its website, and in a newsletter published in June 2001. He further alleges that the Courier Mail defamed him in an article published on 25 April 2001. Both…