Richards v Hutchinson - [2024] QSC 73

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Richards v Hutchinson [2024] QSC 73

PARTIES:

KATE RICHARDS

(plaintiff)

v
DAVID HUTCHINSON AND OTHERS

(defendants)

FILE NO:

13242 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2024

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.   The plaintiff’s amended application filed 25 October 2023 is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to r 293(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR):

(a)     the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh defendants have judgment against the plaintiff for the part of the claim pleaded in paragraphs 46 to 50 of the amended statement of claim filed 10 June 2022; and

(b)     the defendants have judgment against the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation pleaded in paragraphs 51 to 55 of the amended statement of claim; and

(c)     the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants have judgment against the plaintiff for the part of the claim pleaded in paragraphs 17 to 45, 56 and 57 of the amended statement of claim.

3. Pursuant to r 658 of the UCPR, paragraph 10 of the amended statement of claim is struck out.

The Court directs that the parties file and serve any evidence and submissions in relation to costs within 14 days of these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff commenced a claim in December 2020 alleging that the defendants, in their “representative capacity” as the Liberal National Party (LNP) state executive, wrote, authorised and published a media release on 10 December 2019 (annexure A) that was defamatory of her – where, in June 2022, the plaintiff amended her pleadings to include a civil conspiracy claim and another defamation claim relating to a document published on 29 February 2020 (annexure C) – where, by the amended statement of claim, the defendants are now sued “in their representative capacity on behalf of the LNP” – where some of the defendants seek summary judgment in respect of annexure A on the basis that there is no evidence they were involved in its publication – where, in respect of annexure C, all of the defendants seek summary judgment because the claim was brought outside of the limitation period specified in s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) – where some of the defendants seek summary judgment in relation to the civil conspiracy claim as the amended pleadings do not allege they are involved in the conspiracy – whether the plaintiff’s claims have any real prospect of success

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff brought the annexure C claim outside of the limitation period prescribed in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Richards v Hutchinson 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QSC 73
Decision Date: 2 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Richards v Hutchinson, the plaintiff, Ms Richards, initiated legal proceedings against several defendants, who were members of the Liberal National Party (LNP) state executive. Ms Richards alleged that the defendants, in their representative capacity as the LNP state executive, were responsible for the publication of defamatory material in two media releases. The defendants sought summary judgment on the claims, arguing that Ms Richards' claims had no real prospect of success. The case also involved a dispute over whether the limitation period for bringing a claim regarding one of the media releases had been extended appropriately.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Ms Richards' claims had any real prospect of success and whether the limitation period for the second media release had been extended appropriately. The court had to determine if the defendants were properly identified as the publishers of the defamatory material and if the claims were brought within the applicable limitation period. Additionally, the court considered whether the claims for defamation and civil conspiracy could proceed against the defendants.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims had no real prospect of success and dismissed the claims against all the defendants. Regarding the annexure A defamation claim, the court found that only Mr Hutchinson, Mr O’Dwyer, and Mr Cole were involved in its publication, and the other defendants did not participate in the defamation. For the annexure C defamation claim, the court held that the claim was brought outside the limitation period specified in the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient grounds for an extension of this period. The court also noted that the civil conspiracy claim failed because the amended pleadings did not allege the involvement of some of the defendants in the conspiracy. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants on all claims.

The orders of the court were that the plaintiff's amended application filed on 25 October 2023 was dismissed. The court granted judgment to the defendants on various parts of the plaintiff's claim, including the defamation claims and the civil conspiracy claim. Additionally, the court struck out certain paragraphs of the amended statement of claim and directed the parties to file and serve any evidence and submissions in relation to costs within 14 days of the reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

1. The plaintiff’s amended application filed 25 October 2023 is dismissed.

2. Pursuant to r 293(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR):

(a) the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh defendants have judgment against the plaintiff for the part of the claim pleaded in paragraphs 46 to 50 of the amended statement of claim filed 10 June 2022; and

(b) the defendants have judgment against the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation pleaded in paragraphs 51 to 55 of the amended statement of claim; and

(c) the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants have judgment against the plaintiff for the part of the claim pleaded in paragraphs 17 to 45, 56 and 57 of the amended statement of claim.

3. Pursuant to r 658 of the UCPR, paragraph 10 of the amended statement of claim is struck out.

The Court directs that the parties file and serve any evidence and submissions in relation to costs within 14 days of these reasons.

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

It is convenient to first consider the defendants’ application for summary judgment on the annexure A defamation claim, then jointly consider Ms Richards’ application for an extension of the limitation period for the annexure C defamation claim and the related part of the summary judgment application. I will then consider whether summary judgment should be granted in respect of the civil conspiracy claim. Summary judgment At the hearing, there was no dispute that to obtain summary judgment, ordinarily, a defendant must satisfy the Court that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on all or a part of their claim and that there is no need for a trial of the claim or the part of the claim.[5] [5]Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232 (Salcedo), 233 [4] (McMurdo P), 236-237 [17] (Williams JA), 242 [47] (Atkinson J). The facts that are agreed or are common ground For the purposes of these applications, the parties agreed on a statement of facts. The agreed facts included: (a)Mr Hutchinson, Mr O’Dwyer and Mr Cole were the publishers of annexure A. Mr Cole prepared annexure A and sent it to a journalist on 10 December 2019. Mr Hutchinson approved annexure A for publication. Mr O’Dwyer knew it was to be sent. (b)Ms Forrest was given annexure A before it was published for the sole purpose of providing legal advice. She did not authorise its publication. (c)The other defendants did not see annexure A until after it had been published. (d)Mr Hutchinson, Mr O’Dwyer and Mr Cole were the publishers of annexure C. Mr Cole prepared and sent it to a journalist on 29 February 2020. Mr Hutchinson approved it before publication. Mr O’Dwyer knew it was to be sent. (e)Ms Forrest was given annexure C before it was published for the sole purpose of providing legal advice. She did not authorise its publication. (f)The other defendants did not see annexure C until after it had been published. It is common ground that, at the material times, the LNP was an unincorporated voluntary association, which is to say it was not a legal entity. It consisted of all the persons who were members of the LNP at the relevant time.[6] [6]As Lord Lindley observed in Wise v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited [1903] AC 139 at 149, ‘Clubs are associations of a peculiar nature. They are societies the members of which are perpetually changing.”Ms Richard’s annexure A defamation claim Ms Richards alleges that on 10 December 2019, the LNP caused annexure A to be disseminated to numerous media organisations. She alleges the LNP dod this through Mr Hutchinson, Mr O’Dwyer and a person who is not a defendant. She also says that this was done with the knowledge, acquiescence and approval of the other defendants. Ms Richards alleges that annexure A was defamatory of her, and that its publication injured her business, personal and professional reputation, and brought her into public disrepute, odium, ridicule, and contempt. As the LNP was an unincorporated voluntary association, the effect of Ms Richards allegation is that all those who were LNP members on 10 December 2019 caused annexure A to be disseminated to media organisations. In other words, she alleges the entire membership of the LNP, at the time of annexure A’s dissemination, committed the tort. This is the basis on which Ms Richards claims damages for defamation against all the defendants as “representatives” of the members of the LNP. Ms Richards says Mr O’Neil, Ms Hardy, Mr Fraser, Mr Spence, , Mr Springborg, and Mr Tucker are sued only in a representative capacity and not on the basis of “any personal wrongdoing”.[7] [7]In a separate plea, inserted “For the avoidance of doubt” this disclaimer of personal liability is qualified by the phrase “save to the extent that [these defendants] failed (as holders of their respective offices and positions within the LNP) to take proactive steps to prevent the actionable conduct set forth in this pleading”. If this plea serves any purpose, it was not explained. It could not fairly be described as one “for the avoidance of doubt”.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Richards v Hutchinson [2024] QSC 73
PARTIES:	KATE RICHARDS (plaintiff) v DAVID HUTCHINSON AND OTHERS (defendants)
FILE NO:	13242 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 April 2024
JUDGE:	Bradley J
ORDER:	The order of the Court is that: 1. The plaintiff’s amended application filed 25 October 2023 is dismissed. 2. Pursuant to r 293(2) of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999* (Qld) (UCPR): (a) the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh defendants have judgment against the plaintiff for the part of the claim pleaded in paragraphs 46 to 50 of the amended statement of claim filed 10 June 2022; and (b) the defendants have judgment against the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation pleaded in paragraphs 51 to 55 of the amended statement of claim; and (c) the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants have judgment against the plaintiff for the part of the claim pleaded in paragraphs 17 to 45, 56 and 57 of the amended statement of claim. 3. Pursuant to r 658 of the UCPR, paragraph 10 of the amended statement of claim is struck out. The Court directs that the parties file and serve any evidence and submissions in relation to costs within 14 days of these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiff commenced a claim in December 2020 alleging that the defendants, in their “representative capacity” as the Liberal National Party (LNP) state executive, wrote, authorised and published a media release on 10 December 2019 (annexure A) that was defamatory of her – where, in June 2022, the plaintiff amended her pleadings to include a civil conspiracy claim and another defamation claim relating to a document published on 29 February 2020 (annexure C) – where, by the amended statement of claim, the defendants are now sued “in their representative capacity on behalf of the LNP” – where some of the defendants seek summary judgment in respect of annexure A on the basis that there is no evidence they were involved in its publication – where, in respect of annexure C, all of the defendants seek summary judgment because the claim was brought outside of the limitation period specified in s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) – where some of the defendants seek summary judgment in relation to the civil conspiracy claim as the amended pleadings do not allege they are involved in the conspiracy – whether the plaintiff’s claims have any real prospect of success LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff brought the annexure C claim outside of the limitation period prescribed in…