Smith v Farren-Price

[2004] QDC 225

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smith  v Farren-Price [2004] QDC 225

PARTIES:

KEITH SMITH

Plaintiff

and

JOHN FARREN-PRICE

Defendant    

FILE NO:

1168/2001

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Southport

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

18, 19, 22, 23 & 29 March  & 1 April 2004

JUDGE:

Robin QC DCJ  

ORDER:

Claim and counterclaim dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – cross claims by lot owners in a faction-ridden body corporate - defamatory material published only within body corporate on occasions of qualified privilege – absence of good faith not shown

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1977

Defamation Act 1889

Cases cited:

Anthony v Rockett [1999] QCA 434

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371; (1962) 2 All ER 737
Body Corporate for “Surfers Waters” v M & G Angland, Appeal 761 of 1999, 10 March 2000; [2000] QDC 034
Mayes v Hodson (1993) 79 LGERA 65, Appeal (1993) 173 LSJS 2000

Sorenson v MacNamara [2004] 1 Qd R 82
Television New Zealand Limited v Ah Koy [2002] 2NZLR 616

COUNSEL:

Mr P Morrow for the plaintiff, self-represented from
29 March 2004    
Self-represented for the defendant   

SOLICITORS:

Czaus Lawyers for the plaintiff, until 29 March 2004 
Self-represented for the defendant

1. These are the detailed reasons for orders made on 1 April 2004 at the conclusion of a six-day trial dismissing both the plaintiff, Mr Smith’s claim and the defendant, Mr Farren-Price’s counterclaim.  The latter was self-represented throughout, although he had lawyers until some time before trial.  Mr Smith (having expended at least $25,000, as he told the Court) dispensed with legal representation after the fourth day.  In consequence, closing addresses were devoid of legal argument.  Fortunately, the lawyers’ efforts had resulted in the respective claims and responses being effectively pleaded, so that the issues were properly identified.  Once both sides had come to be self-represented, arguments about admissibility of evidence boded to become unmanageable.  The expedient was resorted to of receiving all the evidence tendered, on the basis that any necessary determination of the admissibility of particular evidence or documents could be made in due course by the Court.  (The most troublesome category was material tendered by Mr Smith in a “rebuttal” case which his Counsel had earlier reserved a “right” to present, calculated to discredit Mrs Jill Peters, who was not merely a witness for the defendant: she was obviously the person seen by          Mr Smith and his supporters as the cause of just about everything that went wrong, at least in the sense that her alleged deficiencies in controlling the on-site caretaker/managers, and otherwise, justified the making of numerous complaints and challenges.)

1. The plaintiff was quick to court, filing his claim and statement of claim in his defamation action based on publications by the defendant dated 10 November 2001, 14 November 2001 and 20 November 2001 on 28 November 2001.  The context is “unhappy differences” among the owners of lots in the Kings Row South Community Title Scheme 11397, which is the…