Noone v Brown (No 4) - [2019] QDC 155

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Noone v Brown (No 4) [2019] QDC 155

PARTIES:

MAXINE NOONE
(plaintiff)

v

HEATHER MANSELL BROWN
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1510/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1. I order that the defendant pay interest to the plaintiff fixed in the sum of $819.63.

2. I order that the defendant pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action as agreed or assessed on the District Court Scale on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE- COSTS – who should pay the costs and the amount thereof- whether there should be indemnity costs- departing from the general rule- whether there should be costs of issues- whether costs should be on the Magistrates Court scale

DEFAMATION- DAMAGES – whether interest should be awarded on general damages

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q) s14B

Civil Liability Act 2011 (Q) s 58

Civil Proceedings Act 2003 (Q) ss 4, 60

Defamation Act 2005 (Q) s 40

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 681, 684, 687, 697

BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64

Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016] 1 Qd R 89; [2014] QCA 33

Corliss v Gibbings-Johns [2010] QCA 233

Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 295

Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 946

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Weatherup [2018] 1 Qd R 19; [2017] QCA 70

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11

Pamplin v Express Newspapers [1988] 1 WLR 116; [1988] 1 All ER 282

Rosniak v Government Insurance Office (1997) 41 NSWLR 608

Todrell Pty Ltd v Finch & Ors [2008] 2 Qd R 95; [2008] QSC 386

Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 267

Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 1111

COUNSEL:

P. McCafferty QC for the plaintiff

Solicitors for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Carter Newell for the plaintiff

GTC Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

This is the costs judgment consequent on the decision given in Noone v Brown.[1] There is also an issue on the question of interest.

Plaintiff’s submissions[2]

[1][2019] QDC 133.

[2]Exhibit W for identification.

The plaintiff firstly submits there should be an award of interest on the damages awarded in accordance with Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd.[3] It is submitted that the appropriate rate of interest is 3% per annum and interest should be awarded from the date of the posts i.e. October 2017, until the date of judgment i.e. 2 August 2019. Interest is calculated in the total sum of $819.63.
[3][2016] 1 Qd R 89 at [100]; [2014] QCA 33.

As to the costs order, it is submitted that the general rule should apply.

It is submitted that s 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) provides a broad discretion.…

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 Noone v Brown (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Noone v Brown (No 4) [2019] QDC 155
Case: [2019] QDC 155
Decision Date: 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Noone v Brown (No 4), the plaintiff, Mr. Noone, sought determination of the costs associated with the proceedings against the defendant, Mr. Brown, along with interest on the general damages awarded. The case was heard in the District Court. The primary issues before the court were whether Mr. Brown should pay the plaintiff’s costs and, if so, the amount and scale of those costs, as well as whether interest should be awarded on the general damages.

The court had to decide whether Mr. Brown should bear the plaintiff’s costs and, if so, the appropriate percentage and scale. The court also had to determine whether the costs should include those incurred on particular issues and whether they should follow the Magistrates Court scale. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether interest should be awarded on the general damages, as requested by the plaintiff.

The court found that Mr. Brown should pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action, as agreed or assessed on the District Court Scale on the standard basis. The court departed from the general rule of costs following the lower court scale, opting instead for the higher District Court scale due to the nature of the proceedings. The court also awarded interest on the general damages in the sum of $819.63, aligning with the plaintiff’s request.

The court’s final orders included the payment of interest on the general damages in the specified amount and the payment of 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action, assessed on the District Court Scale on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I order that the defendant pay interest to the plaintiff fixed in the sum of $819.63.

2. I order that the defendant pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action as agreed or assessed on the District Court Scale on the standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Noone v Brown (No 4) [2019] QDC 155
PARTIES:	MAXINE NOONE (plaintiff) v HEATHER MANSELL BROWN (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1510/18
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. I order that the defendant pay interest to the plaintiff fixed in the sum of $819.63. 2. I order that the defendant pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action as agreed or assessed on the District Court Scale on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE- COSTS – who should pay the costs and the amount thereof- whether there should be indemnity costs- departing from the general rule- whether there should be costs of issues- whether costs should be on the Magistrates Court scale DEFAMATION- DAMAGES – whether interest should be awarded on general damages Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q) s14B Civil Liability Act 2011 (Q) s 58 Civil Proceedings Act 2003 (Q) ss 4, 60 Defamation Act 2005 (Q) s 40 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 681, 684, 687, 697 BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64 Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016] 1 Qd R 89; [2014] QCA 33 Corliss v Gibbings-Johns [2010] QCA 233 Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 295 Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 946 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Weatherup [2018] 1 Qd R 19; [2017] QCA 70 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Pamplin v Express Newspapers [1988] 1 WLR 116; [1988] 1 All ER 282 Rosniak v Government Insurance Office (1997) 41 NSWLR 608 Todrell Pty Ltd v Finch & Ors [2008] 2 Qd R 95; [2008] QSC 386 Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 267 Waterman v Gerling Australia Insurance Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 1111
COUNSEL:	P. McCafferty QC for the plaintiff Solicitors for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Carter Newell for the plaintiff GTC Lawyers for the defendant