Robinson v John Laws - [2003] QSC 114

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robinson v John Laws & Anor [2003] QSC 114

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:

9 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 January 2003

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

The applicant is not precluded from proceeding with the application, save in respect of the issue of whether the expunged convictions can be said to form part of the applicant’s criminal record.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where an application brought to strike out parts of further amended pleading delivered after previous pleading was struck out – where applicant alleged parts of amended pleading should be struck out because defence of truth and contextual truth not sustainable in law – whether applicant estopped from bringing the application – whether issue estoppel precluded bringing of application – whether bringing of the application amounted to an abuse of process

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

D. A. Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582, considered
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] NSWLR 36, considered
John Fairfax Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434, considered
Nominal Defendant v Manning (2000) 50 NSWLR 139, considered
Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000, discussed
Robinson v Laws [2003] Qd R 81, discussed

Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 387, considered

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 broadcasts published in 1995 in New South Wales and Queensland. The applicant brings this 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 the previous pleading.
[1][2003] Qd R 81.

The applicant 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…

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 Robinson v John Laws 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: [2003] QSC 114
Decision Date: 9 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robinson v John Laws involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory statements made by the defendant had caused harm to his reputation. The nature of the dispute was centred on the pleadings and whether certain parts of the amended pleading should be struck out. The case was heard in the Queensland court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant was estopped from bringing the application to strike out parts of the pleading, whether issue estoppel precluded the bringing of the application, and whether bringing the application amounted to an abuse of process. The court had to determine if the applicant could still proceed with the application to strike out parts of the pleading, despite having previously struck out a previous pleading.

The court found that the applicant was not estopped from proceeding with the application, and that issue estoppel did not preclude the bringing of the application. However, the court did find that bringing the application amounted to an abuse of process in respect of the issue of whether the expunged convictions could be said to form part of the applicant’s criminal record. The court held that the applicant was not precluded from proceeding with the application, save in respect of the issue of whether the expunged convictions could be said to form part of the applicant’s criminal record. This was the only aspect of the application that was considered an abuse of process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant is not precluded from proceeding with the application, save in respect of the issue of whether the expunged convictions can be said to form part of the applicant’s criminal record.

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 114
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:	9 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 January 2003
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	The applicant is not precluded from proceeding with the application, save in respect of the issue of whether the expunged convictions can be said to form part of the applicant’s criminal record.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where an application brought to strike out parts of further amended pleading delivered after previous pleading was struck out – where applicant alleged parts of amended pleading should be struck out because defence of truth and contextual truth not sustainable in law – whether applicant estopped from bringing the application – whether issue estoppel precluded bringing of application – whether bringing of the application amounted to an abuse of process Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 16(2)(c) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 171 D. A. Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582, considered Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] NSWLR 36, considered John Fairfax Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434, considered Nominal Defendant v Manning (2000) 50 NSWLR 139, considered Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000, discussed Robinson v Laws [2003] Qd R 81, discussed Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 387, considered
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