Rowe v Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College

[2013] QCAT 358

CITATION: Rowe v Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College [2013] QCAT 358

PARTIES:	Chad Rowe (Applicant)
v
Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCD51637/12

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Clare Endicott, senior member

DELIVERED ON: 22 March 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Publication of the contents of any document filed in the Tribunal in this proceeding is prohibited until 4pm on 27 March 2013. Chad Rowe must file in the Tribunal submissions in response to the application for a non-publication order by 4pm on 25 March 2013. Emmanuel College Limited must file submissions in reply by 4pm on 26 March 2013. A determination as to whether the non-publication order will be extended past 27 March 2013 will be determined by a member of the Tribunal based on the written submissions. The Principal Registrar is directed to send this order by email to the parties.

CATCHWORDS:

NON PUBLICATION ORDER – urgent request for order – threatened publication of material on social media – where allegations that material was defamatory – where submissions that publication would be an abuse of process – where status quo to be maintained until application considered

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 66

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

RESPONDENT: Emmanuel Education Ltd t/as Emmanuel College represented by Corney & Lind Lawyers

This ex parte application was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The respondent in this minor civil dispute matter made an urgent ex parte application late on a Friday afternoon seeking orders restraining the other party in the dispute, Mr Rowe, from disclosing to any person any evidence given before the tribunal and from publishing the contents of any document (with some specified exceptions) or thing produced to the tribunal without leave of the tribunal. Under section 66 of the QCAT Act the tribunal can make an order prohibiting the publication of documents or evidence.

2. The respondent submitted to the tribunal in its application for a non publication order that material filed by Mr Rowe was defamatory of the respondent, its principal and its Board.  The respondent submitted that the filing of the material by Mr Rowe constituted an abuse of process. 

3. According to the respondent’s application, Mr Rowe had written a letter to the principal of Emmanuel College on the morning of 22 March 2013 and asserted that he will be setting up a Facebook page and website to outline material that is legally available to members of the public concerning his dispute with the College.  Mr Rowe had written in his letter that the link will be broadcast over all social networks within the next week and will be available to anyone.  Mr Rowe asserted in his letter that the site will be done in such a way to expose the truth concerning Emmanuel College, the treatment of its students and its parents.  Mr Rowe asserted that the site will not be defamatory but simply report on the truth.

4. The tribunal was provided with a copy of a letter written by the lawyers for Emmanuel College and its principal to Mr Rowe later on 22 March 2013.  In that letter the lawyers expressed their opinion that the foreshadowed publishing would be defamatory of their client and others associated with their client.  The lawyers sought an undertaking from Mr Rowe that he would not publish online or otherwise any material or statement about Emmanuel College, its employees, officers or directors without providing the lawyers with at least 2 business days to review such material or statements. 

5. The letter from the lawyers informed Mr Rowe that if he did not provide that undertaking they reserved a right to commence urgent proceedings for interlocutory relief without notice to him. 

6. Mr Rowe responded on the afternoon of 22 March 2013 declining to give an undertaking.  Mr Rowe acknowledged that the respondents might make an interlocutory application.  He commented that if they did so, it will give him more material for his website and Facebook page. 

7. The tribunal was provided with copies of documents which had been filed by Mr Rowe in his minor civil dispute proceedings.  The material included copies of documents from the Federal Magistrates Court and the Child Support Agency as well as copies of correspondence between Mr Rowe and the College and its lawyers.  In his letters and affidavit material, Mr Rowe accused the College of bad faith in its dealings over the enrolment of his daughter and made a series of accusations that may be defamatory if published outside available statutory protections.  

8. Mr Rowe had been placed on notice that the College would seek to stop the imminent publication by him of possible defamatory matter about the College in social media.  Although his response was somewhat offhand, it was made clear that he intended to proceed with the threat of publication.

9. I was satisfied from his response that Mr Rowe was likely to seek to publish material produced to the tribunal in the minor civil dispute proceedings before the tribunal had had an opportunity to consider submissions on the non publication application.  Once publication had occurred and the material was out in the public domain, the efficacy of a subsequent non publication order to the College in relation to the protection of the reputation of persons associated with the College would be lost or at least seriously impaired. I considered it was important to maintain the status quo and prohibit the publication of material from the Tribunal’s file until such time as the non publication application could be determined.

10. I was of the view that the balance of convenience supported an interim order being made until such time as both parties could be heard on the non publication application.