Richards v Hutchinson (No. 2)

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.