Legal Research
Cases
Price v Davies

Price v Davies

Case [2016] QDC 201 9 August 2016

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Price v Davies & Anor [2016] QDC 201

PARTIES:

MICHAEL PRICE

(plaintiff/appellant)

v

DR ANDREW DAVIES

(first defendant/first respondent)

and

AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE LIMITED

(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1019/2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2016

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDERS:

The appeal is dismissed. 1.

2. I order the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or taxed.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether claim for defamation should be set aside on the grounds that the tort did not occur in Queensland

DEFAMATION – whether claim for defamation should be set aside on the grounds that the tort did not occur in Queensland

EVIDENCE – whether expert opinion evidence was given – whether should have been admitted

Defamation Act 1995 (Q) s 8

Evidence Act 1977 (Q) ss 92, 95, 103

District Court Act 1967 (Q) s 113

Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Q) s 47

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 16, 765, 785

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

Bradley v Placements (PNG) Ltd [2014] QSC 16

Carson v John Fairfax (1993) 178 CLR 44

Cerutti and Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QCA 33

Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575

Edington v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2012] QSC 211

JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Precast Concrete Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 272

Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310

Li v R (2003) 139 A Crim R 281

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305

Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98

R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405

R v Perry (No 4) (1982) 28 SASR 119

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489

Thiess Pty Ltd & Anor v Arup Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 131

Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436

Williams v Society of Lloyds [1994] 1 VR 274

COUNSEL:

Mr A. Nelson for the appellant

Mr S. Reidy for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Slade Waterhouse lawyers for the appellant

Meyer Vandenberg lawyers for the respondents

Introduction

This is an appeal against the decision of the Brisbane Magistrates Court given on 18 February 2016 that pursuant to r 16(e) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”) the originating process be set aside.

Principles

The appeal is pursuant to s 47 of the Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Q). This section provides:

“47 Jurisdiction of the District Court

On the hearing of an appeal or special case, the District Court may do any of the following—
(a) draw inferences of fact from facts found by the Magistrates Court, or from admitted facts or facts not disputed;
(b) order a new trial on such terms as it thinks just;
(c) order judgment to be entered for any party;
(d) make any other order, on…

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 Price v Davies

Details

AGLC: Price v Davies [2016] QDC 201
Case: [2016] QDC 201
Decision Date: 9 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Price v Davies was a case heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the plaintiff, Price, sought to challenge a decision by the primary judge to dismiss his claim for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Davies, defamed him in statements made outside Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the claim, given that the alleged defamatory conduct did not occur within Queensland. Additionally, the case involved questions regarding the admissibility of expert opinion evidence in defamation cases and the role of such evidence in determining jurisdictional issues.

The court considered whether the defamation claim could proceed in Queensland courts, given the jurisdictional requirement that the tort must have occurred within the state. The plaintiff argued that the defamatory statements had an impact in Queensland, and thus the court had jurisdiction. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the statements were made outside Queensland and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction. The court further examined the role and admissibility of expert opinion evidence in defamation cases, particularly in relation to determining jurisdictional issues. The plaintiff argued that expert evidence was necessary to establish the impact of the defamatory statements in Queensland, while the defendant opposed the admission of such evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge was correct in dismissing the plaintiff's claim for lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the alleged defamatory conduct did not occur in Queensland, and thus the court did not have the jurisdictional authority to hear the claim. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge was correct in excluding the expert opinion evidence as it did not assist in resolving the jurisdictional issue. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed. 1.

2. I order the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or taxed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Price v Davies [2016] QDC 201

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd
[2014] QCA 33 Para 1

…ey on Libel and Slander 12 th ed. , p 161. [24]Ibid at p 7 and s 8 of the Defamation Act 1995 (Q). [25] Cerutti and Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QCA 33 at [30] per Applegarth J.…
Bradley v Placements (PNG) Ltd
[2014] QSC 16 Para 1

…st the appellant. The quotation relied on makes it clear that it is the publication which causes the harm. [27]Such as Bradley v Placements (PNG) Ltd [2014] QSC 16. [28](1993) 178 CLR 44 at p 60. Also, see judgment of Brennan J at p 71.…
R v Leung
[2013] NSWSC 259 Para 1

…opinions by previous habit. A person can be an expert in an area by reason of skill or knowledge and it can be practical experience. [38] R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405 at 412-413; Li v R (2003) 139 A Crim R 281 at 287-288.…
Edington v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme
[2012] QSC 211 Para 1

…n applications brought under r 293 and authoritative statements about exercising caution and terminating proceedings summarily remain applicable. [17][2012] QSC 211 at [53]-[55].…
Thiess Pty Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd
[2012] QSC 131 Para 1

…experts in any field and, applying the principles expressed in Thiess Pty Ltd & Anor v Arup Pty Ltd & Ors ,[16] the evidence was not admissible. [16][2012] QSC 131.…
JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Precast Concrete Pty Ltd
[2010] QDC 272 Para 1

…“due deference and weight” to the learned magistrate’s view but ultimately the appellant must show the decision appealed from was wrong.[2] [1][2010] QDC 272. [2]See Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98 at [24]; Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 at 180-1; and Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 at [4] per…
Parsons v Raby
[2007] QCA 98 Para 1

…rned magistrate’s view but ultimately the appellant must show the decision appealed from was wrong.[2] [1][2010] QDC 272. [2]See Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98 at [24]; Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 at 180-1; and Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 at [4] per Muir JA.…
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick
[2002] HCA 56 Para 1

…focusses upon publications causing damage to reputation. It is the publication, not the composition of the libel, which is the actionable wrong. [26](2002) 210 CLR 575.…
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles
[2001] NSWCA 305 Para 1

…opinion expressed must be wholly or substantially based upon that knowledge. [37][2012] QSC 131 at [35]. See also Makita Australia Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305.…
Allesch v Maunz
[2000] HCA 40 Para 1

…he appellant must show the decision appealed from was wrong.[2] [1][2010] QDC 272. [2]See Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98 at [24]; Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 at 180-1; and Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 at [4] per Muir JA.…
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd
[1993] HCA 31

…(Q) s 47 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 16, 765, 785 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Bradley v Placements (PNG) Ltd [2014] QSC 16 Carson v John Fairfax (1993) 178 CLR 44 Cerutti and Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QCA 33 Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 Edington v Board of Trustees of the…
Laurie v Carroll
[1958] HCA 4 Para 1

…Where one is endeavouring to set aside the process this does not demonstrate an intention to submit to jurisdiction.[21] [21] Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310.…
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick
[2002] HCA 5610

…ey v Placements (PNG) Ltd [2014] QSC 16 Carson v John Fairfax (1993) 178 CLR 44 Cerutti and Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QCA 33 Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 Edington v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2012] QSC 211 JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Precast Concrete Pty Ltd…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
103, 92, 95 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
16, 765, 785 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld)
47 2 mentions (from Para 1)
District Court Act 1967 (Qld)
113 1 mention
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Price v Davies & Anor [2016] QDC 201
PARTIES:	MICHAEL PRICE (plaintiff/appellant) v DR ANDREW DAVIES (first defendant/first respondent) and AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE LIMITED (second defendant/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1019/2016
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 July 2016
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDERS:	The appeal is dismissed. 1. 2. I order the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or taxed.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether claim for defamation should be set aside on the grounds that the tort did not occur in Queensland DEFAMATION – whether claim for defamation should be set aside on the grounds that the tort did not occur in Queensland EVIDENCE – whether expert opinion evidence was given – whether should have been admitted Defamation Act 1995 (Q) s 8 Evidence Act 1977 (Q) ss 92, 95, 103 District Court Act 1967 (Q) s 113 Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Q) s 47 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 16, 765, 785 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Bradley v Placements (PNG) Ltd [2014] QSC 16 Carson v John Fairfax (1993) 178 CLR 44 Cerutti and Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QCA 33 Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 Edington v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme [2012] QSC 211 JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Precast Concrete Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 272 Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310 Li v R (2003) 139 A Crim R 281 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 Parsons v Raby [2007] QCA 98 R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405 R v Perry (No 4) (1982) 28 SASR 119 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 Thiess Pty Ltd & Anor v Arup Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 131 Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436 Williams v Society of Lloyds [1994] 1 VR 274
COUNSEL:	Mr A. Nelson for the appellant Mr S. Reidy for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Slade Waterhouse lawyers for the appellant Meyer Vandenberg lawyers for the respondents