Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L - [2005] QCA 145

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8758 of 2004
SC No 10119 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 April 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. The appeal is dismissed

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE – REPORTS, EXTRACTS FROM REGISTERS AND OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – OTHER REPORTS AND EXTRACTS, ETC – where appellant published article reporting aspects of public examination before statutory tribunal – where article imputed certain improprieties to respondent – where respondent commenced action for defamation against appellant – where appellant pleaded defence of qualified privilege for report of proceedings of a 'court of justice' under s 13 of Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) – where trial judge struck out defence on grounds tribunal was not a 'court of justice' – whether tribunal could be defined as a 'court of justice'

Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 11, s 13
Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000 (Qld), s 96, s 99,
s 112, s 117

Mann v O'Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204, considered
O'Connor v Waldron [1935] AC 76, cited

COUNSEL:

D C Spence for the appellant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the appellant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

WILLIAMS JA: The critical question for determination in this appeal is whether or not the Queensland Building Tribunal ("the Tribunal") established by s 9 of the Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000 ("the QBT Act") is a "court of justice" for the purposes of s 13(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 1889 ("the Act") either generally or more specifically when the Tribunal is conducting a public examination pursuant to s 112 of the QBT Act. The answer to that question is essentially dependent upon the proper construction of the Act. The answer has relevance only for the purposes of the Act; the answer will not be necessarily determinative of whether the Tribunal is a court of justice in some other context. Given all that, decisions at common law on whether or not a particular tribunal was or was not a court of justice for some purpose are of little, or no, assistance.

The Act in s 11 and s 13 makes a clear distinction between a proceeding in a "court of justice" and an "inquiry made under the authority of a statute"; that distinction is of critical importance in determining the issue raised by this appeal.

What is significant is that by s 11 of the Act absolute protection from liability for defamation is conferred on anyone who publishes…

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 Queensland Newspapers P/L

Details

AGLC: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145
Case: [2005] QCA 145
Decision Date: 6 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Jackson-Knaggs, against the appellant, Queensland Newspapers P/L, in relation to a defamation claim. The respondent initiated the action after the appellant published an article reporting on aspects of a public examination before a statutory tribunal. The article contained allegations of impropriety against the respondent. The appellant defended the defamation claim by asserting the defence of qualified privilege, arguing that the report was of the proceedings of a 'court of justice' as defined under section 13 of the Defamation Act 1889 (Qld). The trial judge rejected the defence, ruling that the statutory tribunal did not qualify as a 'court of justice', leading to the respondent's successful defamation claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory tribunal could be considered a 'court of justice' for the purposes of the qualified privilege defence. The court had to determine if the tribunal's proceedings warranted the protection of qualified privilege, similar to a court of justice, or if the tribunal's nature and functions precluded it from this defence. The court's decision hinged on interpreting the term 'court of justice' and its applicability to statutory tribunals conducting public examinations.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision. It found that the statutory tribunal did not meet the criteria to be classified as a 'court of justice' for the purposes of the qualified privilege defence. The tribunal's functions and proceedings were not equivalent to those of a court of justice, and thus, the defence of qualified privilege was inapplicable. Consequently, the respondent's defamation claim succeeded, and the appellant was liable for the defamation. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs, which were to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs to be assessed

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 Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145
PARTIES:	MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first respondent) QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD ACN 009 661 778 (second respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 8758 of 2004 SC No 10119 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 April 2005
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. The appeal is dismissed 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE – REPORTS, EXTRACTS FROM REGISTERS AND OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS – OTHER REPORTS AND EXTRACTS, ETC – where appellant published article reporting aspects of public examination before statutory tribunal – where article imputed certain improprieties to respondent – where respondent commenced action for defamation against appellant – where appellant pleaded defence of qualified privilege for report of proceedings of a 'court of justice' under s 13 of Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) – where trial judge struck out defence on grounds tribunal was not a 'court of justice' – whether tribunal could be defined as a 'court of justice' Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 11, s 13 Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000 (Qld), s 96, s 99, s 112, s 117 Mann v O'Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204, considered O'Connor v Waldron [1935] AC 76, cited
COUNSEL:	D C Spence for the appellant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Thynne & Macartney for the appellant The respondent appeared on his own behalf