Robinson v. Laws & Anor - [2007] QSC 152

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robinson v Laws & Anor [2007] QSC 152

PARTIES:

ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON

(plaintiff)

V

JOHN LAWS

(first defendant)

RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LTD

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

WRT 1234/95

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application – Leave to Proceed and Dismissal of Action for Want of Prosecution

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

3 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2007

JUDGE:

Moynihan J

ORDER:

The defendants’ application to strike the proceedings out for want of prosecution dismissed.1.

The plaintiff given leave to proceed with claim. 2.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the plaintiff had taken no steps in two years – whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to proceed pursuant to r 389 Uniform civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) 389
The Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) s85, sch 2
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Industrial Court of South Australia & Anor (1985) 62 ALR 512, considered.
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 451, considered.
Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1999]2 Qd R 113, considered.
Cummins v Davis [2000] QSC 158, considered.
Dempsey v Dauber (1990) 1 Qd R 418, considered.
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation and Ors (1993) 116 ALR 218, considered.
Hoy & Anor v Honan & Anor [1997] QCA 250, considered.

Tyler v Custom Credit Corporation Limited & Ors [2000] QCA 178, considered.

COUNSEL:

DC Spence for the plaintiff.

DK Boddice SC for the first and second defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Clewett Corser & Drummond for the plaintiff.

Biggs & Biggs for the first and second defendant.

Introduction

MOYNIHAN J: On 12 July 1995 the plaintiff sued the defendants for defamation as a consequence of statements made by the first defendant broadcast on radio in Queensland and New South Wales by the second defendant on five occasions around that date.[1]
[1] The court file shows a writ filed on 12 July 1995, an entry of appearance on 20 July 1995 and a defence on 3 September 1005. The file does not record the filing of a statement of claim but it is clear the defendants pleaded to one and that it was subsequently amended.

Subsequently there were 10 further instances of defamatory broadcasts between 19 September 1995 and 13 May 1996 and the statement of claim was amended to include all 15 broadcasts. It was later decided to proceed in relation to six of the occasions.

The defendants filed a defence on 3 September 1996, and put defamation and damages in issue and pleaded truth and public benefit, contextual truth and qualified protection.

The action has not been tried and on 19 March 2007 the defendants applied to have it struck out for want of prosecution on the basis…

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. Laws & Anor

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Laws [2007] QSC 152
Case: [2007] QSC 152
Decision Date: 3 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Robinson, filed a lawsuit against the defendants, Laws and another, which was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centres around the plaintiff's failure to take any action in two years, prompting the defendants to seek dismissal of the proceedings under Rule 389 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) on the grounds of want of prosecution. Additionally, the defendants requested that the plaintiff be denied leave to proceed with the claim. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be granted permission to continue with the lawsuit and whether the proceedings should be dismissed due to the plaintiff's inactivity.

The court examined the plaintiff's reasons for the delay and whether there were any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay. The court considered the plaintiff's explanation that the delay was due to a combination of factors, including personal health issues and difficulties in obtaining legal representation. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff had taken steps to rectify the situation by engaging new legal representation and initiating the current application. The court also noted the defendants' lack of prejudice due to the delay.

After considering the plaintiff's explanation for the delay and the absence of prejudice to the defendants, the court decided to grant the plaintiff leave to proceed with the claim. The court found that the plaintiff's reasons for the delay were valid and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting dismissal of the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the proceedings and granted the plaintiff leave to proceed. The court emphasised the importance of timely action in legal proceedings and warned of the potential consequences of delays. The court's decision demonstrates a balanced approach to the application of Rule 389, taking into account the plaintiff's reasons for the delay and the defendants' lack of prejudice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendants’ application to strike the proceedings out for want of prosecution dismissed.1.

The plaintiff given leave to proceed with claim. 2.

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 Laws & Anor [2007] QSC 152
PARTIES:	ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON (plaintiff) V JOHN LAWS (first defendant) RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LTD (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	WRT 1234/95
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application – Leave to Proceed and Dismissal of Action for Want of Prosecution
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	3 July 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2007
JUDGE:	Moynihan J
ORDER:	The defendants’ application to strike the proceedings out for want of prosecution dismissed.1. The plaintiff given leave to proceed with claim. 2.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the plaintiff had taken no steps in two years – whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to proceed pursuant to r 389 Uniform civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) 389 The Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld) s85, sch 2 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Industrial Court of South Australia & Anor (1985) 62 ALR 512, considered. Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 451, considered. Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1999]2 Qd R 113, considered. Cummins v Davis [2000] QSC 158, considered. Dempsey v Dauber (1990) 1 Qd R 418, considered. Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation and Ors (1993) 116 ALR 218, considered. Hoy & Anor v Honan & Anor [1997] QCA 250, considered. Tyler v Custom Credit Corporation Limited & Ors [2000] QCA 178, considered.
COUNSEL:	DC Spence for the plaintiff. DK Boddice SC for the first and second defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Clewett Corser & Drummond for the plaintiff. Biggs & Biggs for the first and second defendant.