Legal Research
Cases
JTD v PDL (No. 3)

JTD v PDL (No. 3)

Case [2023] QDC 5 20 January 2023

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JTD v PDL (No. 3) [2023] QDC 5

PARTIES:

JTD

(plaintiff)

v

PDL

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

[Redacted]

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

20 January 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2022

JUDGE:

Cash DCJ

ORDERS:

The amendments contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the third further amended statement of claim filed on 8 July 2022 are disallowed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where the defendant alleges that the plaintiff’s third further amended statement of claim introduces new causes of action in defamation after the expiry of the period of limitation – whether the amendments to the third further amended statement of claim should be disallowed – whether the plaintiff should have leave to amend pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rule 376(4).

CASES:

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Argus Probity Auditors and Advisors Pty Ltd v Queensland Rail Ltd [2014] QSC 161
Borsato v Campbell & Ors [2006] QSC 191
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234
Firstmac Ltd & Ors v Hunt & Hunt (a firm) [2018] QSC 258
Grenning v Ware & Ors [2005] QSC 82
JDT v PDL [2022] QDC 88
JDT v PDL (No. 2) [2022] QDC 147
McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2017] QCA 259; [2018] 3 Qd R 1
Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] QSC 62
Mokrzecki v Popham & Ors [2013] QSC 123
Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 216
Reynolds v Aluma-Lite Products Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 477
Rossen v Airey [2012] WASCA 26

Westpac Banking Corporation v Hughes & Anor [2011] QCA 42; [2012] 1 Qd R 581

LEGISLATION:

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), ss 10AA, 32A

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 375, 376, 379

COUNSEL:

A M Nelson for the plaintiff/respondent
S C Holland for the defendant/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Stonegate Legal for the plaintiff/respondent
Aitken Whyte Legal for the defendant/applicant

The plaintiff (JTD) claims from the defendant (PDL) damages for defamation. This is the third decision concerning the pleadings. In JTD v PDL[1] the plaintiff, as applicant, sought a ruling that paragraphs of the Further Amended Statement of Claim be deemed as admissions pursuant to rule 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (‘UCPR’). The application was premised upon a submission that the defence filed by the defendant did not engage the plaintiff’s pleaded case. In respect of some of the pleadings, which were concerned with the identification of alleged defamatory publications, Judge Long SC found that the ‘broad approach’ to pleading taken by the plaintiff meant that a similarly broad response by the defendant was not contrary to rule 166(4) and no deemed admissions arose.[2] In relation to parts of the pleadings concerned with the meaning or imputations to…

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 (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: JTD v PDL (No. 3) [2023] QDC 5
Case: [2023] QDC 5
Decision Date: 20 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JTD v PDL (No. 3) involved a dispute where the defendant contested that the plaintiff's third further amended statement of claim introduced new causes of action in defamation after the expiry of the limitation period. The matter was before a court, which was tasked with determining whether the amendments to the third further amended statement of claim should be disallowed and if the plaintiff should receive leave to amend the pleadings in accordance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rule 376(4).

The court was required to decide whether the amendments introduced new causes of action and whether it would be appropriate to grant leave for these amendments. The court considered the implications of the amendments, specifically whether they gave rise to new causes of action and if these new causes were related to the same or substantially similar facts. The court also had to weigh the appropriateness of allowing the amendments under the given procedural rules.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that it would not be appropriate to give leave to amend the pleadings to include the new causes of action. The court found that the amendments introduced new causes of action, which presented an obstacle to concluding that these new causes arose from the same or substantially similar facts. Consequently, the court disallowed the amendments contained in certain paragraphs of the third further amended statement of claim.

The court's final orders were that the amendments contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14 of the third further amended statement of claim filed on 8 July 2022 were disallowed. The court further directed that the parties would be heard regarding the costs of the application, either on the papers if the parties could agree or otherwise on a date to be fixed in consultation with the registry.

Orders

Orders of the court

The amendments contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the third further amended statement of claim filed on 8 July 2022 are disallowed.

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

Because I have reached the conclusion that it would not be ‘appropriate’ to give leave to amend the pleadings to include the new causes of action, it is unnecessary to consider the second part of the test posed by rule 376(4). Having said that, it seems to me that the factors that lead me to conclude the amendments give rise to new causes of action would present an obstacle to a conclusion that the new causes arise out of the same or substantially similar facts.Conclusion The result is that the application will be allowed in part and there will be an order that the amendments contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the third further amended statement of claim filed on 8 July 2022 are disallowed. I will hear the parties as to the costs of the application, either ‘on the papers’ if the parties agree or otherwise on a date to be fixed in consultation with the registry.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

JTD v PDL (No. 3) [2023] QDC 5

Most Recent Citation

JTD v PDL (No. 4) [2023] QDC 12

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Woolf v Brandt
[2023] NSWDC 460 Para 2

…In JTD v PDL (No 3) [2023] QDC 5, the publications were made prior to the 1 July 2021 amendments but, because Queensland had enacted the legislative reforms, the issue of the single publication rule is referred to in passing. The same was the case in Ingram v Ingram [2022] NDWDC 653, McVicker v Australian Broad…
JTD v PDL (No. 4)
[2023] QDC 12 Para 1

…laintiff submits that the appropriate order is to make the costs of the application the parties’ costs in the proceeding. [1] JTD v PDL (No. 3) [2023] QDC 5.…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

JDT v PDL (No 2)
[2022] QDC 147 Para 2

…defendant leave to withdraw the deemed admissions, ordered the judgments be anonymised, and gave directions for the filing of amended pleadings. [4][2022] QDC 147.…
JTD v PDL
[2022] QDC 88 Para 1

…ributed to the defamatory publications, Judge Long found that the defendant’s ‘blanket denial’ did not comply with rule 166(4).[3] [1][2022] QDC 88. [2] JDT v PDL [2022] QDC 88, [24]-[25]. [3]Ibid, [28]-[29]. While not presently relevant, Judge Long also declined to authorise the plaintiff to issue interrogatori…
Firstmac Ltd v Hunt & Hunt (a firm)
[2018] QSC 258 Para 13

…R 1, [49]. I have also been assisted by the summary of principles expressed by Bond J in Firstmac Ltd & Ors v Hunt & Hunt (a firm) [2018] QSC 258, [16]-[26].…
McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd
[2017] QCA 259 Para 11

…importance to so-called ‘material’ facts has been eschewed by the Queensland Court of Appeal. [13] McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2017] QCA 259; [2018] 3 Qd R 1, [42], [61]. [14]Ibid, [44]. [15] Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, 245 (Wilson J). While Sir Ronald was in dissent in that case,…
Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
[2015] QSC 62 Para 7

…4). As such I will proceed on the premise stated in the application that rule 379 is engaged. [6][2011] QCA 42; [2012] 1 Qd R 581, [4] and [24]. [7][2015] QSC 62, [17].…
Murdoch v Lake
[2014] QCA 216 Para 11

…J). While Sir Ronald was in dissent in that case, his statement has been subsequently cited with approval – see Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 216, [17]. [16] Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 216, [17].…
Argus Probity Auditors and Advisors Pty Ltd v Queensland Rail Ltd
[2014] QSC 161 Para 7

…for a cause of action for defamation other than in the circumstances specified in the subsection (2)’. [32]UCPR, rule 376(4)(a). [33][2014] QSC 161.…
Mokrzecki v Popham
[2013] QSC 123 Para 13

…no evidence relevant to this issue tendered, and no argument about how, if leave were granted, this issue be resolved. [36] Mokrzecki v Popham & Ors [2013] QSC 123, [18]-[20].…
Rossen v Airey
[2012] WASCA 26 Para 6

…g rise to different defences and a different measure of damages… It is not to the point that the content of the material published is the same. [25][2012] WASCA 26, [31] citing, inter alia , Komarek v Ramco Energy Plc [2002] EWHC 2501 (QB), [62].…
Westpac Banking Corporation v Hughes
[2011] QCA 42 Para 7

…nd should have leave to amend pursuant to rule 376(4). As such I will proceed on the premise stated in the application that rule 379 is engaged. [6][2011] QCA 42; [2012] 1 Qd R 581, [4] and [24]. [7][2015] QSC 62, [17].…
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University
[2009] HCA 27

…be disallowed – whether the plaintiff should have leave to amend pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rule 376(4). CASES: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Argus Probity Auditors and Advisors Pty Ltd v Queensland Rail Ltd [2014] QSC 161 Borsato v Campbell & Ors [2006] QSC 191 Do Carmo v Ford Excavations…
Borsato v Campbell
[2006] QSC 191 Para 12

…r, by the level of abstraction at which a plaintiff’s case is described. [17][2017] QCA 259; [2018] 3 Qd R 1. [18]Ibid, [61]. [19][2006] QSC 191. As Brown J observed in McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd at n 49, the decision in Borsato has been subsequently approved in the Court of Appeal.…
Grenning v Ware
[2005] QSC 82 Para 6

…on. It will be a matter for the plaintiff to consider whether he wishes to make an application under that rule with proper supporting evidence. [31][2005] QSC 82, [8].…
Reynolds v. Aluma-Lite Products Pty Ltd
[2004] QSC 477 Para 6

…t of a pleading where it has a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding or be an abuse of the process of the court. [5][2004] QSC 477.…
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd
[1984] HCA 17 Para 11

…Queen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2017] QCA 259; [2018] 3 Qd R 1, [42], [61]. [14]Ibid, [44]. [15] Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, 245 (Wilson J). While Sir Ronald was in dissent in that case, his statement has been subsequently cited with approval – see Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 216, [17]. [16] Mu…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
375, 376, 379 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
10AA, 32A 2 mentions
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 9)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 7)

CITATION:	JTD v PDL (No. 3) [2023] QDC 5
PARTIES:	JTD (plaintiff)
v
PDL (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	[Redacted]
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	20 January 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	5 August 2022
JUDGE:	Cash DCJ
ORDERS:	The amendments contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the third further amended statement of claim filed on 8 July 2022 are disallowed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS – AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where the defendant alleges that the plaintiff’s third further amended statement of claim introduces new causes of action in defamation after the expiry of the period of limitation – whether the amendments to the third further amended statement of claim should be disallowed – whether the plaintiff should have leave to amend pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rule 376(4).
CASES:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Argus Probity Auditors and Advisors Pty Ltd v Queensland Rail Ltd [2014] QSC 161 Borsato v Campbell & Ors [2006] QSC 191 Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234 Firstmac Ltd & Ors v Hunt & Hunt (a firm) [2018] QSC 258 Grenning v Ware & Ors [2005] QSC 82 JDT v PDL [2022] QDC 88 JDT v PDL (No. 2) [2022] QDC 147 McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2017] QCA 259; [2018] 3 Qd R 1 Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] QSC 62 Mokrzecki v Popham & Ors [2013] QSC 123 Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 216 Reynolds v Aluma-Lite Products Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 477 Rossen v Airey [2012] WASCA 26 Westpac Banking Corporation v Hughes & Anor [2011] QCA 42; [2012] 1 Qd R 581
LEGISLATION:	Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), ss 10AA, 32A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 375, 376, 379
COUNSEL:	A M Nelson for the plaintiff/respondent S C Holland for the defendant/applicant
SOLICITORS:	Stonegate Legal for the plaintiff/respondent Aitken Whyte Legal for the defendant/applicant