SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175
PARTIES:
KATHY MICHELLE PINGEL
(applicant/respondent)
v
TOOWOOMBA NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
ACN 009 820 035
(respondent/appellant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 11799 of 2009
SC No 9056 of 2009DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
16 July 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 March 2010
JUDGES:
Fraser JA and Fryberg and Applegarth JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser JA and Fryberg J concurring as to the orders made, Applegarth J dissentingORDERS:
Grant the respondent leave to file the notice of contention dated 23 March 2010.1.
Allow the appeal, set aside the orders made in the trial division, and instead order that the respondent’s application under s 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) be dismissed with costs.2.
Order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.3.
CATCHWORDS:
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS – where the appellant published an article in The Chronicle on 21 June 2008 which reported alleged misconduct by an unnamed person and the respondent considered that the article defamed her – where the respondent applied under s 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) for an extension of time within which to pursue an action for defamation – where s 10AA of the Act provides that an action for defamation must be brought within one year of the date of the publication – where the primary judge ordered that the limitation period for the respondent’s cause of action be extended pursuant to s 32A(2) of the Act – where the primary judge concluded that it was not reasonable in the circumstances for the respondent to have commenced an action for defamation before the expiry of the limitation period – whether the primary judge erred in finding that it was not reasonable for the respondent to have commenced an action for defamation against the appellant within one year of the date of publication of the article
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – OTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL – OTHER MATTERS – whether s 19 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) renders evidence of an offer to make amends made under Division 1 of Part 3 inadmissible in an application under s 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – whether evidence of a prospective plaintiff’s reason for not commencing proceedings within the limitation period is admissible in an application under s 32A
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – GENERALLY – whether the principles regulating appellate review of discretionary decisions apply in an appeal under s 32A(2)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 3(d), s 12, s 13, s…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] QCA 175
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case included whether the primary judge erred in finding that it was not reasonable for the respondent to have commenced a defamation action within one year of the publication date. Additionally, the case addressed whether section 19 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) renders evidence of an offer to make amends inadmissible in an application under section 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), and whether evidence of the prospective plaintiff’s reasons for not commencing proceedings within the limitation period is admissible. The case also considered the principles regulating appellate review of discretionary decisions in the context of an appeal under section 32A(2) of the Act.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in extending the limitation period. The appellate court held that the principles regulating appellate review of discretionary decisions apply in an appeal under section 32A(2) and that the primary judge had failed to properly consider the relevant factors. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made by the trial division, and dismissed the respondent's application for an extension of time with costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Grant the respondent leave to file the notice of contention dated 23 March 2010.1.
Allow the appeal, set aside the orders made in the trial division, and instead order that the respondent’s application under s 32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) be dismissed with costs.2.
Order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.3.
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.