Moore-McQuillan v Cox - [2016] SADC 98

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
MOORE-MCQUILLAN v COX & ORS
[2016] SADC 98
Reasons for Decision of Her Honour Judge Davison
19 August 2016
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - COURTS
Appeal against a Decision of a Master who refused to remit the appellant's matter to the Supreme Court of South Australia, refused to disqualify himself and refused that an application be heard urgently.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Respondents to have the costs of the appeal.
District Court Act 1991 s 24(2); Defamation Act 2005 s 33, referred to.
McLean v DID Piling Pty Ltd [2010] SASC 33; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; McDonald v South Australia [2015] SASC 141; Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Bond (2000) 78 SASR 339; Stone v Moore [2015] SASC 46; Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation [2010] SASC 162, considered.

MOORE-MCQUILLAN v COX & ORS
[2016] SADC 98

The appellant has filed an action for defamation relating to comments allegedly made on Facebook by the respondents in 2012. The appellant seeks damages and removal of the allegedly defamatory statements. The action commenced in the Supreme Court in October 2013 and was transferred to the District Court on 27 March 2014 by his Honour Judge Dart. His Honour indicated that he thought it was more appropriate to conduct this action in either the District Court or the Magistrates Court, and as the appellant opposed the matter being transferred to the Magistrates Court, Judge Dart remitted the matter to the District Court.
The statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court on 21 October 2013 is as follows: [1]
[1]    FDN 2.
Part 1:
The causes of action, the basis of them and the material facts are:-
1.   Defendants Jan Cox of [address], Steph Preston [postal address] and Jarrod Cox [address] have defamed M Moore-McQuillan on the 21 December 2012 when you wrote or instructed to be written by Jarrod Cox defamatory remarks on FaceBook site “Steph Preston” on the 21 December 2012.
2.   The defamation remarks were published on:”Facebook” wed site which has an international readership and not a local confined readership.
3.   These posts have defamed Mr M Moore-McQuillan and further subjected Mr Moore-McQuillan to suffer and be subject to abuse and threats from unknown people which start after the defamation material was publish, that have Mr Moore-McQuillan in fear for his well-being and safety.
4.   On the 21 December 2012 Jan Cox and Jarrod Cox did use Steph Preston’s FaceBook account with consent and permission to post defamation material about Mr M Moore-McQuillan
5.   Jan Cox did not use her own FaceBook site, or any site that is directly connected to Jan Cox, in an attempt to hide her identity and deliberately post defamatory statements to knowingly cause harm, abuse and to defame M Moore-McQuillan’s character. By knowingly using…

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 Moore-McQuillan v Cox

Details

AGLC: Moore-McQuillan v Cox [2016] SADC 98
Case: [2016] SADC 98
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moore-McQuillan and Cox were the parties involved in this case. The dispute revolved around a question of procedure concerning the jurisdiction of the courts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issue that the court was required to address was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in the absence of an appellant. The court had to determine whether it was necessary for the appellant to be present in order to hear an appeal and if the absence of the appellant could result in the dismissal of the appeal.

The court considered the applicable laws and legal principles and concluded that the presence of the appellant was not a necessary condition for the court to hear an appeal. The court held that the absence of the appellant did not necessarily result in the dismissal of the appeal. Instead, the court had the discretion to proceed with the appeal even in the absence of the appellant. The court further held that the absence of the appellant did not affect the court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the absence of the appellant did not impede the court's ability to hear the appeal.

The court's reasoning was based on the relevant legal principles and statutes. The court found that the appellant's absence did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court held that the absence of the appellant was not a ground for dismissing the appeal. The court further held that the absence of the appellant did not affect the court's ability to hear and determine the appeal. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the absence of the appellant did not impede the court's ability to hear the appeal.

Orders