Russell v Queensland Television Pty Ltd

[2019] QDC 60

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Russell v Queensland Television Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QDC 60

PARTIES:

MICHELLE RUSSELL
(plaintiff/respondent)

v

QUEENSLAND TELEVISION PTY LTD (ACN 009 674 373)
(first defendant/applicant)

and

PIPPA BRADSHAW
(second defendant)

and

NINE DIGITAL PTY LTD (ACN 077 753 461)
(third defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

D28/17

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

9 April 2019

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.      Judgement for the first defendant against the plaintiff in respect of the plaintiff’s claims against the first defendant.

2.      Judgement for the third defendant against the plaintiff in respect to the plaintiff’s claims against the third defendant.

3       I will hear the parties as to costs.

4.     The parties are to file any submissions on the issue of costs within 7 days.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – whether statements were of or concerning the plaintiff – whether published by the defendant – where published matter not of or concerning the plaintiff – where matter not published by the defendant

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY JUDGEMENT – where the plaintiff has no real prospects of succeeding in claim against the defendant – where no need for a trial

CASES:

LEGISLATION:

COUNSEL:

Amalgamated Television v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
David Syme & Co v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234
Deputy-Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232
Jones v E Hulthon  Co [1909] 2 K.B. 444
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116
Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 645
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer [2012] 2 Qd R 139
Queensland University of Technology v Project Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2003] 1 Qd R 259
Sadgrove v Hole [1901] 2 K.B.1
Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 201

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – rr293 and 295

Mr P McCafferty QC for the applicants
Ms Russell self-represented

SOLICITORS:

M&K Lawyers Group for the applicants

1. The second defendant is a television journalist.  On 14 February 2017 she attended at premises occupied by the plaintiff.  She was accompanied by two cameramen.  At the premises the second defendant engaged in exchanges with the plaintiff.  Those exchanges were audio-visually recorded by the cameramen.  Other footage of the plaintiff was also taken. 

1. That evening an episode of “A Current Affair” (“ACA”) was broadcast in which there was a segment relating to what was referred to as a “barcode scam”.  The recordings of the exchanges between the second respondent and the plaintiff and the other footage taken at the plaintiff’s premises was used in the segment.  The segment was subsequently made available online. 

1. The first defendant is a commercial broadcaster responsible for broadcasting ACA.  The third defendant is an entity responsible for making…