JTD v PDL - [2022] QDC 88

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JTD v PDL [2022] QDC 88

PARTIES:

JTD

(applicant/plaintiff)

v

PDL

(respondent/defendant)

FILE NO:

[Redacted]

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore District Court

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore District Court

HEARING DATE:

28 January 2022

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

1. It is ruled that each of sub-paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence, filed on 13 September 2021, does not comply with the requirements of rule 166(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

2. The parties will be heard as to the orders and directions necessary in light of this ruling.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – Procedure under uniform civil procedure rules – Pleading – Statement of claim and defence – Where the applicant’s statement of claim contains pleadings alleging five separate defamatory publications made by the respondent – Where the applicant seeks a declaration pursuant to UCPR 166 that the respondent is deemed to have admitted various pleadings contained within a statement of claim –– where the parties were under an obligation to plead all material facts on which they rely and to “specifically state any matter that if not specifically stated may take another party by surprise” pursuant to UCPR 149(1)(b) and 150(4)(c) – Where the applicant contends the respondent must plead both the words said and people to whom those words were spoken for any pleading to be ‘responsive’ – Whether the respondent’s pleaded denials were accompanied by a “direct explanation for the party’s belief that the allegation is untrue or cannot be admitted”.

PROCEDURE – Procedure under uniform civil procedure rules – Pleading – Statement of claim and Defence – Alternatively, where the applicant seeks leave to deliver interrogatories pursuant to UCPR 229 - Where the interrogatories are directed at the first, second and fifth alleged defamatory publications – Where the function of interrogatories is to prove facts otherwise unable to be established and to extract admissions, so as to save time and expense and undermine an opponent’s case at trial – Whether it is in the interests of justice pursuant to UCPR 229 to grant leave to deliver the interrogatories sought – Where the proposed interrogatories presented with an absence of apparent efficacy.

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 5, 116, 149, 150, 166, 229, 230

CASES:

Braham v Huntingfield [1932] 2 KB 193
Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 116
Cross v Qld Rugby Football Union & Anor [2001] QSC 173
Davey v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1956] 1 WLR 233
Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Gilbert v Goodwin (No. 3) [2006] 1 Qd R 499
Groves v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union & Anor [2004] QAC 142
Holdway v Arcuri Lawyers (a Firm) [2009] 2 Qd R 18
Kaiser v George Laurens (NSW) Pty Ltd (1982) 1 NSWLR 294
Miller v Nakhla [2022] QDC 47
Pinson v Lloyds and National Provincial Foreign Bank Ltd [1941] KB 72

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 JTD v PDL

Details

AGLC: JTD v PDL [2022] QDC 88
Case: [2022] QDC 88
Decision Date: 19 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of JTD v PDL, the applicant sought a declaration under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) that the respondent had admitted certain allegations contained in the statement of claim, and alternatively, leave to deliver interrogatories regarding certain defamatory publications. The primary focus of the dispute was the adequacy of the respondent's pleadings and the efficacy of the proposed interrogatories.

The court considered whether the respondent's denials were accompanied by a direct explanation for their belief that the allegations were untrue, as required by UCPR 149(1)(b) and 150(4)(c). Additionally, the court evaluated whether the interrogatories, which were directed at three specific defamatory publications, would facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues in the matter. The court found that the respondent's denials did not comply with the procedural requirements, as they did not provide a direct explanation for the party's belief that the allegations were untrue. Furthermore, the court determined that the proposed interrogatories lacked apparent efficacy due to the undefined term "sexual assault" and its potential to mislead rather than assist in resolving the issues.

Given the findings, the court ruled that certain paragraphs of the respondent's defence did not comply with the procedural rules. The court directed the parties to be heard on the appropriate orders and directions to ensure the efficient progress of the litigation. The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for clarity and specificity in pleadings and interrogatories to facilitate the resolution of disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is ruled that each of sub-paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence, filed on 13 September 2021, does not comply with the requirements of rule 166(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

2. The parties will be heard as to the orders and directions necessary in light of this ruling.

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

Moreover, there is an absence of apparent efficacy in the proposed interrogatories. While it may be understood that the underpinning terminology “sexual assault” may have been chosen in attempt to minimise the number of proposed interrogatories, the underlying difficulty is that despite any general understanding of what may be meant, it is an undefined term and not representative of any terminology pleaded in respect of the Second Publication. It may therefore be doubted that leaving such interpretation open to the respondent is likely to assist in the objective, pursuant to UCPR 5, of facilitating the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues in this matter, at a minimum of expense. Conclusion Given the limited nature of the success of the applicant, as has been explained in these reasons, particularly in the context of what has not been successfully achieved as the main thrust of this application, it will be appropriate to hear the parties as to the form of any relief with a view to the appropriate and efficient progress of this litigation, and any consequential orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	JTD v PDL [2022] QDC 88
PARTIES:	JTD (applicant/plaintiff) v PDL (respondent/defendant)
FILE NO:	[Redacted]
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:	19 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore District Court
HEARING DATE:	28 January 2022
JUDGE:	Long SC, DCJ
ORDER:	1. It is ruled that each of sub-paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence, filed on 13 September 2021, does not comply with the requirements of rule 166(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. 2. The parties will be heard as to the orders and directions necessary in light of this ruling.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – Procedure under uniform civil procedure rules – Pleading – Statement of claim and defence – Where the applicant’s statement of claim contains pleadings alleging five separate defamatory publications made by the respondent – Where the applicant seeks a declaration pursuant to UCPR 166 that the respondent is deemed to have admitted various pleadings contained within a statement of claim –– where the parties were under an obligation to plead all material facts on which they rely and to “specifically state any matter that if not specifically stated may take another party by surprise” pursuant to UCPR 149(1)(b) and 150(4)(c) – Where the applicant contends the respondent must plead both the words said and people to whom those words were spoken for any pleading to be ‘responsive’ – Whether the respondent’s pleaded denials were accompanied by a “direct explanation for the party’s belief that the allegation is untrue or cannot be admitted”. PROCEDURE – Procedure under uniform civil procedure rules – Pleading – Statement of claim and Defence – Alternatively, where the applicant seeks leave to deliver interrogatories pursuant to UCPR 229 - Where the interrogatories are directed at the first, second and fifth alleged defamatory publications – Where the function of interrogatories is to prove facts otherwise unable to be established and to extract admissions, so as to save time and expense and undermine an opponent’s case at trial – Whether it is in the interests of justice pursuant to UCPR 229 to grant leave to deliver the interrogatories sought – Where the proposed interrogatories presented with an absence of apparent efficacy.
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 5, 116, 149, 150, 166, 229, 230
CASES:	Braham v Huntingfield [1932] 2 KB 193 Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2009] 1 Qd R 116 Cross v Qld Rugby Football Union & Anor [2001] QSC 173 Davey v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1956] 1 WLR 233 Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 Gilbert v Goodwin (No. 3) [2006] 1 Qd R 499 Groves v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union & Anor [2004] QAC 142 Holdway v Arcuri Lawyers (a Firm) [2009] 2 Qd R 18 Kaiser v George Laurens (NSW) Pty Ltd (1982) 1 NSWLR 294 Miller v Nakhla [2022] QDC 47 Pinson v Lloyds and National Provincial Foreign Bank Ltd [1941] KB 72