Magub v Hinchliffe

[2004] QSC 4

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Magub v Hinchliffe [2004] QSC 004

PARTIES:

JUDY MAGUB
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
DAVID HINCHLIFFE
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

S 8337/99

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 January 2004

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

The plaintiff is ordered to provide the particulars of paragraph 17 of her statement of claim as requested on 11 December 2003 by 10 February 2004.

Paragraphs 7(d), 15(h), (j), (k), (p), (r), (t), (u), (w), (x), (xb) and (xd), (16)(a), (k), (l), (q), (s), (u), (v), (w), (x), (y), (yb) and (yd) are struck out, with leave to replead paragraphs 7(d), 15(k) and 16(1) with greater particularity.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – DEFAMATION – IMPUTATIONS – PLEADINGS – whether pleadings sufficiently specify the alleged imputation

TORTS – DEFAMATION – IMPUTATIONS – whether plaintiff may plead overlapping imputations

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 67, r 11
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 149

Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158, applied
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519, applied
Cashman v Hinchliffe [2003] QCA 161, considered
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135, considered
Evans v Davies [1991] 2 Qd R 498, cited
Jones v Skelton [1963] SR (NSW) 644, cited

Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81, cited
Grubb v Bristol United Press Ltd [1963] 1 QB 309, cited
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, cited

COUNSEL:

M P Amerena for the applicant
P J Favell with R J Anderson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Nicholsons Solicitors for the applicant
Deacon & Milani Solicitors for the respondent

1. McMURDO J:  This defamation claim is one of a group of cases brought by various councillors within the Liberal Opposition in the Brisbane City Council against Councillor Hinchliffe for statements made by him at a meeting of the Council on 24 August 1999.  Each plaintiff relies upon the same publication.  In this proceeding, the defendant applies to strike out parts of the statement of claim and for particulars of other parts.  An earlier version of this statement of claim was affected by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in another of these cases which is Cashman v Hinchliffe [2003] QCA 161, where the full text of the publication complained of is annexed to the court’s judgment.

1. On the relevant occasion, the defendant spoke in relation to certain petitions which had been presented to the Council.  The defendant suggested that several of the purported petitioners had not known of or agreed to the use of their names as petitioners.  The defendant said that the petitions were “inspired by the Liberal Opposition” and that it was “greatly concerning to us that … some of the people who had been involved in circulating these petitions have done so fraudulently”.  He continued:

“… what fraud to a team that’s lead by someone who uses guns to get rid of Council…