Robinson v John Laws - [2003] QSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robinson v John Laws & Anor [2003] QSC 282

PARTIES:

ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON
(plaintiff / applicant)
v
JOHN LAWS
(first defendant / first respondent)
and

RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LIMITED
(second defendant / second respondent)

FILE NO:

SC 1234 of 1995

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2003

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – application to strike out defence of truth and contextual truth because not sustainable in law – whether substantial truth of contextual imputations capable of being considered to so effect plaintiff’s reputation that plaintiff’s imputations do not further injure it

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 16(2)(c)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 171

Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1981) 1 NSWLR 36
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
Perkins v Harris Unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal 26 May 1995 BC 9504627
Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81
Waterhouse v Hickie (1995) Aust Torts Reports ¶ 81 - 347
Whelan v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSW SC 1028

COUNSEL:

A Morris QC with D Spence for the plaintiff / applicant
B Connell for the defendants / respondents

SOLICITORS:

Thynne and Macartney for the plaintiff / applicant
Biggs and Biggs for the defendants / respondents

PHILIPPIDES J:

The Application

The applicant is a plaintiff in defamation proceedings against the first defendant, a radio announcer, and the second defendant, a radio station, concerning alleged defamation arising out of a number of broadcasts published in 1995 in New South Wales and Queensland. The applicant brings an application pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules seeking an order that certain paragraphs of the respondents’ amended defence dated 4 May 2001 (“the amended defence”) be struck out. The amended defence was delivered as a result of an order made by the Court of Appeal in Robinson v Laws[1] (“Robinson”) striking out the whole of a previous pleading.
[1][2003] 1 Qd R 81.

The application seeks to strike out paragraphs 28, 31(a) and 31(b) of the amended defence on the grounds that:

(a) as to paragraphs 28 and 31(a), the respondents’ plead a defence of justification (truth and public benefit), in respect of alleged defamatory statements that the applicant’s criminal record included certain “crimes”, by reference to former convictions in respect of petty offences, which were expunged by virtue of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld), and which is unsustainable; and

(b) as to paragraph 31(b), the respondents plead “contextual truth” under New South Wales law, which is unsustainable.

The respondents raised, as a preliminary matter, the issue of whether the applicant was disentitled from bringing this application. On 9 May 2003, I determined that preliminary issue by finding that the applicant…

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 Robinson v John Laws

Details

AGLC: Robinson v John Laws [2003] QSC 282
Case: [2003] QSC 282
Decision Date: 3 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in Robinson v John Laws were filed in the Queensland Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Robinson, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, John Laws. The dispute centred on comments made by Laws about Robinson, which the plaintiff alleged were defamatory. Laws responded by asserting that the comments were true and, if not, that they were substantially true in a context that would not injure Robinson’s reputation. Robinson moved to have Laws’ defences of truth and substantial truth struck out, arguing that they were not sustainable in law.

The court had to determine whether the defences of truth and substantial truth were valid in the circumstances of this case. Specifically, it needed to decide whether the substantial truth of the contextual imputations could be considered to have such an effect on Robinson’s reputation that the plaintiff's imputations did not further injure it. The court examined the nature of the imputations, the context in which they were made, and their potential impact on Robinson’s reputation.

After careful consideration, the court found that the defences of truth and substantial truth were not invalid as a matter of law. The court held that the substantial truth of the contextual imputations could indeed affect Robinson's reputation in a way that meant the plaintiff's imputations did not further injure it. Consequently, the court dismissed Robinson's application to strike out the defences. The case proceeded to trial with the defences intact.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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:	Robinson v John Laws & Anor [2003] QSC 282
PARTIES:	ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON (plaintiff / applicant) v JOHN LAWS (first defendant / first respondent) and RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LIMITED (second defendant / second respondent)
FILE NO:	SC 1234 of 1995
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2003
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – application to strike out defence of truth and contextual truth because not sustainable in law – whether substantial truth of contextual imputations capable of being considered to so effect plaintiff’s reputation that plaintiff’s imputations do not further injure it Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 16(2)(c) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 171 Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1981) 1 NSWLR 36 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541 Perkins v Harris Unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal 26 May 1995 BC 9504627 Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81 Waterhouse v Hickie (1995) Aust Torts Reports ¶ 81 - 347 Whelan v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSW SC 1028
COUNSEL:	A Morris QC with D Spence for the plaintiff / applicant B Connell for the defendants / respondents
SOLICITORS:	Thynne and Macartney for the plaintiff / applicant Biggs and Biggs for the defendants / respondents