Jones v Aussie Networks Pty Ltd - [2014] QSC 126

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jones v Aussie Networks Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 126

PARTIES:

RHYS EDWARD JONES
(applicant)

v

AUSSIE NETWORKS PTY LTD
ABN 44 124 401 734
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

12056/13

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2014

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson J

ORDERS:

1.   Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd be added as a second plaintiff in the proceeding;

2.   Joseph Keith Eiby be added as a second defendant in the proceeding;

3.   The applicant and Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd have leave to amend the claim and statement of claim conformably with the draft that was included in the affidavit material before this proceeding to reflect the addition of these parties to the proceeding;

4.   The applicant and Australia Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd file and serve any amended claim and statement of claim on or by 4 pm 26 June 2014; and

5.   The costs of the application be costs in the cause.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant seeks leave to add parties to a defamation action – where the respondent agrees to the joinder of an individual as a second defendant – where the respondent disputes the joinder of a corporation as a second plaintiff – where the respondent alleges that the proposed second plaintiff is not an ‘excluded corporation’ under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), with reference to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and therefore has no right to bring an action in defamation – where the respondent further alleges that numerous evidentiary and procedural issues should preclude the addition of the proposed second plaintiff – whether the corporation should be joined as a second plaintiff

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 9, s 46, s 48, s 50
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 9, s 35
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10AA
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 45
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69, r 377

Australian Pipeline Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1316
Edward Brewer Homes Pty Ltd v Home Builders Australia Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 257
Hemmingway v Intico (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] AIRC 603

COUNSEL:

Charles Wilson for the applicant
Peter Somers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Attwood Marshall Lawyers for the applicant
Potts Legal for the respondent

Wilson J: Mr Rhys Edward Jones commenced a defamation action against Aussie Networks Pty Ltd in December 2013. He alleges that the company, which owns and controls an online interactive stockmarket forum, published defamatory comments on its website concerning him on 18 June 2013.

Following disclosure, Mr Jones seeks to join two new parties to this proceeding under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (‘UCPR’) r 69. He also seeks leave to amend his claim and statement of claim under UCPR r 377 to reflect the addition of these parties. He is within time to amend the claims: the limitation…

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 Jones v Aussie Networks 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: [2014] QSC 126
Decision Date: 12 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones v Aussie Networks Pty Ltd, the applicant sought leave to add parties to a defamation action in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, who had already initiated a defamation proceeding against Aussie Networks, wished to add Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd as a second plaintiff and Joseph Keith Eiby as a second defendant. Aussie Networks consented to the addition of Eiby but contested the inclusion of Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd, arguing that it was not an 'excluded corporation' under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) and therefore lacked the right to sue for defamation. Aussie Networks further contended that procedural and evidentiary complications would arise from the addition of the corporation as a plaintiff.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd should be permitted to join the proceeding as a second plaintiff. This required an examination of the definition of 'excluded corporation' under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) and the interplay with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Additionally, the court needed to consider whether any procedural or evidentiary hurdles would be insurmountable if the corporation was allowed to join the proceeding.

The court found that Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd was not an excluded corporation and, therefore, was eligible to bring a defamation action. The court further determined that the respondent's arguments regarding procedural and evidentiary issues were not sufficient to preclude the corporation from joining the proceeding. The court granted the application, allowing Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd to be added as a second plaintiff and Joseph Keith Eiby as a second defendant. The applicant and Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd were permitted to amend their claim and statement of claim to reflect these changes, with the amended documents to be filed and served by a specified date. The costs of the application were to be borne by the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd be added as a second plaintiff in the proceeding;

2. Joseph Keith Eiby be added as a second defendant in the proceeding;

3. The applicant and Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd have leave to amend the claim and statement of claim conformably with the draft that was included in the affidavit material before this proceeding to reflect the addition of these parties to the proceeding;

4. The applicant and Australia Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd file and serve any amended claim and statement of claim on or by 4 pm 26 June 2014; and

5. The costs of the application be costs in the cause.

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:	Jones v Aussie Networks Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 126
PARTIES:	RHYS EDWARD JONES (applicant) v AUSSIE NETWORKS PTY LTD ABN 44 124 401 734 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	12056/13
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 May 2014
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson J
ORDERS:	1. Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd be added as a second plaintiff in the proceeding; 2. Joseph Keith Eiby be added as a second defendant in the proceeding; 3. The applicant and Australian Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd have leave to amend the claim and statement of claim conformably with the draft that was included in the affidavit material before this proceeding to reflect the addition of these parties to the proceeding; 4. The applicant and Australia Shareholder Centre Pty Ltd file and serve any amended claim and statement of claim on or by 4 pm 26 June 2014; and 5. The costs of the application be costs in the cause.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant seeks leave to add parties to a defamation action – where the respondent agrees to the joinder of an individual as a second defendant – where the respondent disputes the joinder of a corporation as a second plaintiff – where the respondent alleges that the proposed second plaintiff is not an ‘excluded corporation’ under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), with reference to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and therefore has no right to bring an action in defamation – where the respondent further alleges that numerous evidentiary and procedural issues should preclude the addition of the proposed second plaintiff – whether the corporation should be joined as a second plaintiff Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 9, s 46, s 48, s 50 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 9, s 35 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10AA Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 45 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69, r 377 Australian Pipeline Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1316 Edward Brewer Homes Pty Ltd v Home Builders Australia Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 257 Hemmingway v Intico (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] AIRC 603
COUNSEL:	Charles Wilson for the applicant Peter Somers for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Attwood Marshall Lawyers for the applicant Potts Legal for the respondent