Swindles v Reiter

[2011] QDC 200

[2011] QDC 200

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 2379 of 2011

PAUL JOSEPH SWINDLES	Applicant
and
DAVID PHILIP REITER	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/07/2011

ORDER

CATCHWORDS
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, Schedule

Claim for damages for psychiatric injury allegedly the consequence of negligence in publishing defamatory statements about the applicant (for leave to proceed) in a book based on use of his actual name rather than a made up name in one of the references - whether there was "personal injury"
HIS HONOUR: The court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft which is one of common kind granting leave to a would be plaintiff to commence a proceeding, notwithstanding non-compliance with the ordinary pre‑litigation requirements of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in circumstances where the limitation period is about to expire.

On one view, the circumstances are unusual.  The applicant places before the court as an indication of the respondent and putative defendant's attitude a letter from his solicitors indicating "our client will not oppose the orders that you seek on Friday if you can convince the court that you otherwise established the necessary elements to proceed.  Your client's claim is farfetched."

...

HIS HONOUR:  In the circumstances, I have inquired into the detail of the matter to a greater extent than I might normally.  It is an unusual claim for psychiatric injury associated with the applicant's reaction to publication of a book in which he says he features in depictions which would ordinarily be understood to be defamatory, in most cases assigned a different name but in one instance with his correct Christian name used.

Personal injury is defined in the Act in a way that brings in psychiatric illnesses.  I can see no reason why the legislation would not be applicable to the plaintiff's claim which seeks damages for personal injuries sustained over a period of time from mid-2008 to 2010 in the course of his employment and occasioned by the negligence and/or breach of duty of the defendant, his servants and agents.  That negligence and/or breach of duty is related to the publication of the relevant book which came out at some uncertain time in the latter part of 2008.

On one view, that might fix a date from which the limitation period runs, hence this application which, applying the established approach, the court should accede to.  There has been no appearance by or for the defendant today when he was called.

‑‑‑‑‑