Matchett v. Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [2004] QSC 223

[2004] QSC 223

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ATKINSON J

No 8524 of 1997

RUTH LEWIN MATCHETT

Applicant

and

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD

and

MICHAEL WARE

First Respondent

Second Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 14/07/2004

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: The defendants, Queensland Newspapers Proprietary Limited and Michael Ware, have brought an application to the Court that subparagraphs 7(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the second further amended Statement of Claim of the plaintiff (the "Statement of Claim") be struck out with leave to replead.

That paragraph is the paragraph in the Statement of Claim which contains the imputations which the plaintiff says arise in the natural and ordinary meaning of the article of which she complains.

The article of which she complains was published on 16 September 1997 on page one of the Courier Mail under the heading "Child Sex Abuse Claims Ignored". The by-line of the article shows the name of the second defendant. The first defendant is alleged to be the publisher of the Courier Mail.

The plaintiff has pleaded the publication of part of the article. No complaint is made about that. In paragraph 4, the material part of the article which was complained about is said to be:

"The Family Services Department abandoned its duty to protect children by refusing to investigate allegations of paedophilia outside the home, a confidential police report has claimed.
In March 1994 Department officers were directed not to take any investigative action when a child claimed sexual or other abuse by someone who was not a member of their family, except in special circumstances.
The Police Service's Project Horizon report on child protection against paedophilia in Queensland slammed then Director-General Ruth Matchett's directive as a 'gross abdication' of the Department's duty to safeguard children.
'This decision has dire consequences for the due process of investigating paedophile assaults of children since officers do not see such victims as subject to the Scan Team (Child Abuse) Assessment', the report said.
Ms Matchett could not be contacted for comment last night.
However, it was revealed that Minister Kev Lingard was set to introduce new legislation into State Parliament to cover his Families, Youth and Community Care Department, the new name for Family Services.
Under the new legislation the department would have to notify police of any allegations of abuse.
Under the old policy, no action was taken over claims of abuse committed outside the family...
Mr Lingard said yesterday that he was 'appalled and mortified' to think that action on whether to fight sexual abuse hinged on who had abused the child...
The police's 1996 Horizon Project report found that under department guidelines victims of paedophilia committed by someone not in their family were still being discriminated against and ignored...
A ministerial briefing paper, believed to have been drawn up earlier this year, claimed that the 1994 policy 'was not developed as a response to resource constraints'."

The plaintiff has alleged that five imputations arise from that article. They are that:

(a) The plaintiff, as…

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 Matchett v. Queensland Newspapers 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: [2004] QSC 223
Decision Date: 14/07/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants in this case, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd and Michael Ware, sought to have certain imputations from the plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck out. The plaintiff, Ruth Lewin Matchett, is suing the defendants over an article published in the Courier Mail on September 16, 1997, which she claims defames her by implying she was responsible for abandoning the duty to protect children. The article, titled "Child Sex Abuse Claims Ignored", includes a police report that criticises the plaintiff's directive, and quotes from a ministerial briefing paper. The plaintiff has alleged that five specific imputations arise from the article, including that she was instrumental in abandoning the duty to protect children and was responsible for a gross abdication of the department's duty to safeguard children.

The legal issues before the court were whether the imputations pleaded in the Statement of Claim had the potential to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, and whether they disclosed a cause of action. The defendants argued that the imputations did not disclose a cause of action because the defamatory meaning was incapable of arising from the way in which the imputations were pleaded, and that they were insufficiently precise for the defendants to properly plead defences to them. The court considered the relevant legal principles and the arguments of both parties before making a decision.

The court found that each of the defamatory imputations in this case was clearly conveyed by the words used in the article. For example, the imputation that the plaintiff was responsible for a gross abdication of the department's duty to safeguard children was clearly defamatory and the words used in the article. The court also found that although the imputations covered a broadly similar subject matter, each of them was specifically different and referred to a different part of the article. Therefore, the court refused the application to strike out the imputations.

In addition to refusing the application to strike out, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application, and directed the parties to file and serve any amended defence and reply within specific timeframes. The court also directed the parties to deliver a mediation order setting out the particulars of a mediation order, or bring the matter on for further mention to direct the terms in which a mediation should take place.

Orders