Thomson v Broadley

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Thomson v Broadley & Ors [2000] QSC 100 was heard and decided by Justice Jones. The plaintiff, Gregory Ronald Thomson, sought damages for defamation and unlawful termination of employment against the defendants, John Kenneth Broadley, Roderick James Broadley, Adam John Broadley, and Aptoga Pty Ltd. The defendants filed a counter-claim for defamation against the plaintiff. The court had to decide on two applications: the plaintiff’s application to strike out the counter-claim and the defendants’ application to strike out specific paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

The court examined the nature of the publications relied upon for the defamation claim and whether parliamentary privilege applied. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were relying on the publication by Mr. Peter Purcell in Parliament and various media publications of the parliamentary proceedings, which were protected. The defendants argued they were relying on the plaintiff’s publication to Mr. Purcell and that the other publications were relevant only for damages. The court held that the communication between the plaintiff and Mr. Purcell was capable of being an occasion of qualified privilege only, but whether such a defence was made out depended on facts not before the court. The court found that the identification of the republications should be particularised in the pleadings to establish the sense and substance of the original publication and to identify the basis for the plaintiff’s liability for the damage caused by the further publications.

The court also considered the defendants’ application to strike out paragraphs 11-17 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, which related to the claim for unlawful termination of employment. The court held that the claim for damages for wrongful dismissal based on s.73 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 should be struck out, as the Act did not apply to the plaintiff. However, the claim for damages based on an alleged implied term that the defendants would not carry on a dishonest or corrupt business was allowed to proceed, as it was a matter to be determined at trial.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to strike out the counter-claim but allowed the defendants’ application to strike out paragraphs 11-13 of the statement of claim. The costs of both applications were reserved to the trial judge.