MICHAEL NOONAN (plaintiff/respondent) v GARY MACLENNAN (first defendant/first applicant/appellant) JOHN HOOKHAM (second defendant/second applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 9941 of 2009 DC No 1672 of 2009
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
12 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 February 2010
JUDGES:
Keane and Holmes and Chesterman JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:
Leave to appeal granted1.
Appeal allowed2.
Decision below is set aside and judgment given for the defendants against the plaintiff3.
Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the action and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis4.
CATCHWORDS:
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS – where defendants were university lecturers – where defendants published an article critical of the plaintiff's PhD thesis on 11 April 2007 – where plaintiff alleged the criticisms were defamatory – where plaintiff initially pursued a non-legal dispute resolution process run by the university – where plaintiff commenced legal proceedings on 17 June 2009 – where s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act1974 (Qld) provides that an action for defamation must not be brought after the end of one year from the date of publication of the material complained of – whether it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to have commenced an action within one year from the date of publication
J B Rolls for the applicants/appellants P J Favell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Eardley Motteram for the applicants/appellants H Drakos & Company for the respondent
KEANE JA: Mr Noonan is the plaintiff in an action for damages for defamation arising out of the publication of an article in "The Australian" newspaper on 11 April 2007. Mr MacLennan and Mr Hookham are the defendants in the action. They were at all material times staff members of the Queensland University of Technology ("the University"). The article in "The Australian" repeated the defendants' criticisms of the plaintiff's PhD thesis. These criticisms are alleged to have been defamatory of the plaintiff.
Mr Noonan's action was commenced on 17 June 2009. By the defence in the action, the defendants…
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 Noonan v MacLennan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50
Case
[2010] QCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Noonan v MacLennan involved the plaintiff, who was a PhD candidate, bringing an action against two university lecturers, the defendants, for defamation. The defamation arose from the publication of a critical article by the defendants about the plaintiff's PhD thesis on 11 April 2007. The plaintiff initiated legal proceedings on 17 June 2009, after first attempting to resolve the matter through a non-legal dispute resolution process provided by the university. The primary issue before the court was whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have delayed in commencing legal action under section 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), which mandates that actions for defamation must be brought within one year from the date of publication.
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay, considering factors such as the plaintiff's engagement in non-legal dispute resolution, the complexity of the issues involved, and the nature of the defamation. It was noted that the plaintiff had access to legal advice and had the opportunity to commence legal proceedings within the statutory period. The court concluded that the delay was not justified and that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced the action within the one-year limitation period. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff's action was statute-barred and dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the lower court was set aside. Judgment was entered in favour of the defendants, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the action and the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in defamation cases and highlighted the necessity for plaintiffs to act promptly in pursuing their legal remedies.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted1.
Appeal allowed2.
Decision below is set aside and judgment given for the defendants against the plaintiff3.
Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the action and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis4.