SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Knapp v Hinchliffe [2004] QSC 326
PARTIES:
GERALDINE MARY KNAPP
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
DAVID HINCHLIFFE
(defendant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
S8342 of 1999
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
22 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12 July 2004
JUDGE:
McMurdo J
ORDER:
1. Paragraphs 4(b)(ii), 5(b), 5(c), 7(b)(ii)A, 7(b)(ii)E, 7(b)(ii)F, 7(b)(ii)I, 9(b) of the Reply will be struck out.
2. The plaintiff will be ordered to provide particulars of paragraphs 7(b)(ii) and 9(c)(v) by specifying the parties from whom the defendant should have inquired as to the accuracy of the publication, by identifying those persons by name or description.
3. The application filed on 10 June 2004 is otherwise dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – where Reply pleads that plaintiff is aware that the defendant’s costs of proceedings are protected by insurance policy – whether defendant’s insurance is relevant – whether pleading should be struck out
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where defendant pleads qualified privilege – where Reply pleads that publication was not for the public good – whether for “public good” if no steps taken to verify truth of publication – whether pleading only goes to issue of good faith – whether pleading should be struck out
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where Reply pleads the reason by why the defendant intended to make a statement on a subject – whether distinction between purposes and motive in s 16(1) of Defamation Act 1889 – whether pleading only goes to issue of good faith – whether pleading should be struck out
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where Defence pleads extended category of qualified protection under the common law based on Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation – where Reply pleads that defendant is not entitled to rely upon any extended defence of qualified protection – where particulars allege publication was unreasonable, excessive or motivated by ill will – where defendant argues that particulars provided by plaintiff are not capable of proving unreasonable publication – whether each particular is relevant – whether any of the particulars should be struck out
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where Reply alleges defendant failed to take proper steps to verify the accuracy of the publication – whether particulars of steps which should have been taken including the identification or categorisation of those parties is necessary
Criminal Code (Qld), s 377
Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 16(1), s 16(1)(c), s 16(1)(e), s 16(1)(h),
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 150(2)
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419, applied
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183, considered
Bridges v Australian Consolidated PressLtd [1967] 2 NSWR 511, considered
Calwell v IPEC Australia Ltd (1975) 135 CLR 321, cited
Cashman v Hinchcliffe [2003] QCA 161, cited
Cotogno v Lamb (No 3) (1986) 5…
Continue reading Knapp v Hinchliffe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Knapp v Hinchliffe [2004] QSC 326
- Case
- [2004] QSC 326
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to decide whether certain pleadings were relevant to the issues in the case, particularly those concerning the defendant's costs being protected by insurance, the absence of steps to verify the truth of the publication, the distinction between the defendant's purpose and motive, and the failure to take proper steps to verify the accuracy of the publication. The court also had to determine whether specific particulars were necessary to support the allegations made by the plaintiff.
The court held that several of the pleadings in the reply were irrelevant to the issues in the case. These included references to the defendant's insurance coverage, the distinction between the defendant's purpose and motive, and specific allegations about the reasonableness and motivation behind the publication. The court found that these pleadings did not go beyond the issue of good faith and were thus not relevant to the defamation claim. However, the court did not strike out all pleadings, and it ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars regarding the parties from whom the defendant should have sought verification of the publication's accuracy. The plaintiff was also ordered to specify the parties by name or description.
The court dismissed the application filed on 10 June 2004 in all other respects, allowing the remaining pleadings to stand. The court's decision focused on the relevance of the pleadings to the defamation claim and the necessity of providing specific details to substantiate the allegations made by the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Paragraphs 4(b)(ii), 5(b), 5(c), 7(b)(ii)A, 7(b)(ii)E, 7(b)(ii)F, 7(b)(ii)I, 9(b) of the Reply will be struck out.
2. The plaintiff will be ordered to provide particulars of paragraphs 7(b)(ii) and 9(c)(v) by specifying the parties from whom the defendant should have inquired as to the accuracy of the publication, by identifying those persons by name or description.
3. The application filed on 10 June 2004 is otherwise dismissed.
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.