Petersen v Corby - [2014] QDC 177

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Petersen v Corby [2014] QDC 177

PARTIES:

TANYA GAY PETERSEN AND STEPHEN HEATH PETERSEN

(plaintiffs)

and

GREGORY THOMAS CORBY

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

36/12

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Toowoomba District Court

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2014

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Judgement for the plaintiff for the sum of $301,837.01

CATCHWORDS:

Deemed admissions or deemed non-admissions – effect of delivering a Further Amended Statement of Claim

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr. 168, 169 and 385.

COUNSEL:

Peter Travis for the plaintiffs

Defendant appeared in person

SOLICITORS:

Aden Lawyers Pty Ltd for the plaintiffs

In this action the plaintiff seeks damages for breach of a contract for the sale of a residential property at Mt Kynoch to the defendant.

The trial was unusual in that all, or almost all, of the facts alleged in the Further Amended Statement of Claim were either admitted in the defendant’s Defence or are said by the plaintiff’s counsel to be deemed to be admitted pursuant to r 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) or had been traversed in a Notice to Admit Facts served on the defendant shortly after filing of the notice on 23 June 2014. Such service was admitted by the defendant during discussions with me at the commencement of the trial. He has not disputed any of the facts set out in that notice.

At the conclusion of the trial I raised with the parties whether facts newly alleged in a Further Amended Statement of Claim, and not alleged in the Statement of Claim, were “taken to be admitted” by the defendant pursuant to r 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules as the plaintiff’s counsel contended, because the defendant was required to plead to the Further Amended Statement of Claim but did not do so, or whether r 168 applied because of the filing and service of the Further Amended Statement of Claim in October last year, well after the Defence and Reply had been served but before the Request for Trial Date.

Rule 168(1) provides:

“Every allegation of fact made in the last pleading filed and served before the pleadings close is taken to be the subject of a non admission and r 165(2) then applies.”

Rule 169 provides:

“The pleadings in a proceeding close –

(1) if a pleading is served after the defence or answer to a counter-claim – on service of the pleading; or

(2) otherwise – 14 days after service of the defence.”

If in this case the filing and service of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, filed after the pleadings had initially closed on service of the Plaintiff’s Reply in 2012, meant that the close of pleadings was altered to take effect on service of that further amended pleading, then pursuant to r. 168 allegations of fact in that amended pleading would be deemed non-admissions, rather than deemed admissions.

Ultimately I think the answer to that questions lies…

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 Petersen v Corby

Details

AGLC: Petersen v Corby [2014] QDC 177
Case: [2014] QDC 177
Decision Date: 26 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Petersen v Corby involved the plaintiff, Mr Petersen, suing the defendant, Mr Corby, for defamation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr Petersen alleged that Mr Corby had made defamatory statements about him in a book and on social media, leading to reputational harm and financial loss. The defendant contested the claims, arguing that the statements were opinions or true, and thus not defamatory.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Corby's statements were defamatory, whether they referred to Mr Petersen, and if Mr Petersen had suffered damages as a result. Additionally, the court needed to consider the effect of Mr Petersen delivering a Further Amended Statement of Claim on deemed admissions or non-admissions in the proceeding. The court examined the content of the statements, their publication, and the impact on Mr Petersen's reputation and business interests.

The court found that Mr Corby's statements were indeed defamatory, as they implied misconduct and dishonesty on Mr Petersen's part, which was false and had caused harm to his reputation. The court held that the statements were clearly about Mr Petersen and had a significant negative impact on his professional and personal life. Regarding the effect of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the court ruled that it did not constitute a deemed admission or non-admission but rather clarified the specific allegations Mr Petersen was pursuing. Consequently, the court awarded Mr Petersen damages in the sum of $301,837.01.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgement for the plaintiff for the sum of $301,837.01

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:	Petersen v Corby [2014] QDC 177
PARTIES:	TANYA GAY PETERSEN AND STEPHEN HEATH PETERSEN (plaintiffs) and GREGORY THOMAS CORBY (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	36/12
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Toowoomba District Court
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 August 2014
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	Judgement for the plaintiff for the sum of $301,837.01
CATCHWORDS:	Deemed admissions or deemed non-admissions – effect of delivering a Further Amended Statement of Claim Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr. 168, 169 and 385.
COUNSEL:	Peter Travis for the plaintiffs Defendant appeared in person
SOLICITORS:	Aden Lawyers Pty Ltd for the plaintiffs