Richards v Hutchinson (No. 2) - [2024] QSC 99

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Richards v Hutchinson (No. 2) [2024] QSC 99

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:

22 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Determined without an oral hearing. Written submissions filed 20 May 2024.

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.   The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of:

(a)   the defendants’ amended application filed 8 September 2023; and

(b)   the plaintiff’s amended application filed 25 October 2023.

2.   The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants’ costs of the proceeding are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the plaintiff commenced a claim in December 2020 alleging that a media release published by some of the defendants in December 2019 was defamatory of her – where the plaintiff amended her claim in June 2022 to include another defamation claim for a document published between December 2019 and March 2020 and a civil conspiracy claim – where some of the defendants sought summary judgment in respect of the original defamation claim on the basis that there is no evidence they were involved in the publication of the media release – where all the defendants sought summary judgment in respect of the later defamation claim as it was brought outside the limitation period specified in s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) – where the plaintiff brought an application for an extension of the limitation period under the Act – where the plaintiff’s application for an extension of the limitation period was dismissed – where the Court gave summary judgment for the later defamation claim for all of the defendants, and for some of the defendants in respect of the original defamation claim and civil conspiracy claim – where the defendants each made offers to settle prior to the plaintiff amending her claim – whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants’ costs of both applications – whether costs in relation to the defendants’ application for summary judgment should be reserved until the conclusion of the proceeding – whether the plaintiff should pay costs in relation to the later defamation claim and civil conspiracy claim on an indemnity basis

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 40

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 682(2)

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris KC for the plaintiff

P McCafferty KC and A Hellewell for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Australian Law Partners Pty Ltd for the plaintiff
Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the defendants

On 2 May 2024, the Court made orders and published reasons dealing with two applications.[1] The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an extension of a limitation period for a second defamation claim,[2] and gave summary judgment for all the defendants on the second defamation claim, and for some of the defendants on the plaintiff’s other claims (for damages for the…

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 (No. 2) 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 99
Decision Date: 22 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Richards v Hutchinson (No. 2) case involved the plaintiff, Ms. Richards, who initiated a defamation lawsuit against multiple defendants in December 2020, alleging that a media release published in December 2019 was defamatory. The suit was amended in June 2022 to include a further defamation claim relating to a document published between December 2019 and March 2020, as well as a civil conspiracy claim. The defendants sought summary judgment on the basis that some were not involved in the publication of the initial media release, and all defendants sought summary judgment on the second defamation claim due to it being outside the limitation period specified in the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The plaintiff's application for an extension of the limitation period was dismissed, leading to summary judgment being granted for the later defamation claim and some of the defendants in respect of the original defamation and civil conspiracy claims.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff should bear the costs of both the defendants' and plaintiff's applications, whether the defendants' summary judgment application costs should be reserved until the proceeding's conclusion, and whether the plaintiff should pay the costs relating to the later defamation claim and civil conspiracy claim on an indemnity basis. The court examined the procedural history, including the timing of the amendments and the offers to settle made before the amendment. The court also considered the relevance of the plaintiff's amended application and its impact on the defendants' right to seek costs.

In its decision, the court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the amended applications filed in September 2023 and October 2023. The costs of the proceeding for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants were reserved. The court found that the plaintiff should be liable for the costs of the defendants' amended application, given the timing and nature of the plaintiff's actions. The court also determined that the costs related to the later defamation claim and civil conspiracy claim should be paid on an indemnity basis, reflecting the plaintiff's failure to successfully defend these claims. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural timeliness and the consequences of late amendments in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that:

1. The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of:

(a) the defendants’ amended application filed 8 September 2023; and

(b) the plaintiff’s amended application filed 25 October 2023.

2. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants’ costs of the proceeding are reserved.

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:	Richards v Hutchinson (No. 2) [2024] QSC 99
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:	22 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Determined without an oral hearing. Written submissions filed 20 May 2024.
JUDGE:	Bradley J
ORDER:	The order of the Court is that: 1. The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of: (a) the defendants’ amended application filed 8 September 2023; and (b) the plaintiff’s amended application filed 25 October 2023. 2. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth defendants’ costs of the proceeding are reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the plaintiff commenced a claim in December 2020 alleging that a media release published by some of the defendants in December 2019 was defamatory of her – where the plaintiff amended her claim in June 2022 to include another defamation claim for a document published between December 2019 and March 2020 and a civil conspiracy claim – where some of the defendants sought summary judgment in respect of the original defamation claim on the basis that there is no evidence they were involved in the publication of the media release – where all the defendants sought summary judgment in respect of the later defamation claim as it was brought outside the limitation period specified in s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) – where the plaintiff brought an application for an extension of the limitation period under the Act – where the plaintiff’s application for an extension of the limitation period was dismissed – where the Court gave summary judgment for the later defamation claim for all of the defendants, and for some of the defendants in respect of the original defamation claim and civil conspiracy claim – where the defendants each made offers to settle prior to the plaintiff amending her claim – whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants’ costs of both applications – whether costs in relation to the defendants’ application for summary judgment should be reserved until the conclusion of the proceeding – whether the plaintiff should pay costs in relation to the later defamation claim and civil conspiracy claim on an indemnity basis
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 40 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 682(2)
COUNSEL:	A J H Morris KC for the plaintiff P McCafferty KC and A Hellewell for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Australian Law Partners Pty Ltd for the plaintiff Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the defendants