Mizikovsky v Queensland Television Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mizikovsky v Queensland Television Ltd & Ors [2011] QSC 205

PARTIES:

LEV MIZIKOVSKY
(Plaintiff)

v

QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LIMITED
(ACN 009 674 373)
(First Defendant)

and

TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD
(ACN 001 549 560)
(Second Defendant)

and

GENERAL TELEVISION CORPORATION PTY LTD
(ACN 004 330 036)
(Third Defendant)

and

SOUTHERN CROSS BROADCASTING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 186 974)
(Fourth Defendant)

and

SWAN TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTER PTY LTD (ACN 008 689 745)
(Fifth Defendant)

and

NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(ACN 008685407)
(Sixth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 8404 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for proceeding to be tried without Jury  

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 July 2011

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE –

QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TRIAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff claims he was defamed – where the defendants deny the material was defamatory and request trial by jury – whether the trial will require a prolonged examination of contractual and other documents by a jury or involve technical issues that cannot be conveniently resolved by a jury

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Dwyer v IPC Magazines Ltd (unreported) Supreme Court of New South Wales, 21 April 1993

Syddall v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [2008] QSC 101

McBride v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 10

Rothermere & Ors v Times Newspapers Limited & Ors [1973] 1 WLR 448

Smit v Chan [2003] 2 Qd R 431

Taylor v Anderton [1995] 1 WLR 447

COUNSEL:

Tobin QC with Martin, MD for the applicant/plaintiff

McClintock SC with McCafferty, PJ for the respondents/defendants

SOLICITORS:

Clarke Kann for the applicant/plaintiff

Thynne & McCartney for the respondents/defendants

1. The plaintiff claims he was defamed in an edition of the television programme, “A Current Affair”, transmitted on 12 June 2008.  The defendants deny the programme was defamatory of the plaintiff, and in the alternative, plead defences of truth, contextual truth, qualified privilege and fair comment.  They request trial by jury.

1. By application filed 17 June 2011, the plaintiff seeks orders that the proceedings be tried without a jury. These orders, which are opposed by the defendants, are sought pursuant to either s 21 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) (“the Act”) or Rule 474 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”).

Pleadings

1. At the time of the relevant programme, the plaintiff was executive chairman of a building construction company, Dixon Homes.  The programme dealt with complaints by customers of Dixon Homes.  The plaintiff alleges the programme conveyed imputations that he lied to customers of Dixon Homes, had no regard towards or did not care about such customers, misled customers, caused financial loss and hardship to such customers and was the boss of a building company which was not a competent builder,…