DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hallam v O’Connor & Anor (No. 3) [2020] QDC 344
PARTIES:
GREGORY JOHN CHARLES HALLAM
(Plaintiff)
V
LYN ELIZABETH O’CONNOR & ANOR
(Defendants)
FILE NO/S:
23 of 2018
DIVISION:
Civil
DELIVERED ON:
30 November 2020 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
JUDGE:
Reid DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment conditional upon an assessment of damages entered against the first defendant in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action in paragraphs 19 to 174 of the further amended statement of claim.
2. The assessment of damages be conducted by the judge of this Court hearing and determining the balance of the proceedings.
3. The first defendant serve a copy of her list of documents pursuant to rule 214 and form 19 on or before 14 December 2020
4. That the fourth defendant serve a list of documents in compliance with rules 211 and 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules on or before 4pm on 14 December 2020.
5. Direct that the list of documents may be emailed to the plaintiff’s solicitor.
I have previously made orders for disclosure by the first defendant in this proceeding on the 15th of May, the 18th of August and the 12th of October. I have also had the opportunity to hear the first defendant make submissions at the time of all of those orders.
On the 18th of September 2020 I dictated a judgment ordering that judgment conditional upon an assessment of damages be entered against the first defendant in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action which relied on publications concerning the plaintiff and defamatory of him which had been published by her subsequent to the commencement of these proceedings.
The more recent order of the 12th of October required that she make disclosure by the 23rd of November. She has failed to do so. Furthermore, an affidavit of the plaintiff’s solicitor filed by leave before me today indicates that she unilaterally decided that the adjourned hearing of the application, which was listed for 2 pm today to meet her convenience, could not proceed as she was, to quote an email exhibited to that affidavit:
Working – and I have received the work diary which confirms: There is a full face-to-face patient case load in the rooms of the practice so it is simply not possible for me to break away from my front desk/reception base to participate by phone, as Monday is going to be operationally very busy “forward facing” (as we call it inhouse) to the exclusion of all other tasks.
I reiterate that the hearing at 2 pm on Monday was specifically to meet her convenience because she had indicated to me she was only able to appear on either a Monday or a Friday, as I recall. In the circumstances, I have concluded that there is abundant evidence to indicate that Ms O’Connor has no interest in complying with orders of the Court and/or holds such orders in such scant regard that she has a belief that she is entitled to dictate to the Court how and when the matter should proceed.
In circumstances where she has exhibited such conduct on numerous occasions and has simply failed to comply with orders of the Court, and indeed her obligations under the rules to make disclosure, it is, I think, appropriate to order, pursuant to rule 374 of the Uniform Procedure Rules, that there be judgment against her in a form I will shortly indicate.
That rule applies if a party does not comply with an order to take a step in the proceedings. I should point out that the rule also does not limit the powers of the Court to punish for contempt of Court. No order in that regard is made at this time, but one of the orders I foreshadow is that I will order that she serve a copy of the list of documents, pursuant to rule 214 and form 19, on or before the 14th of December 2020. Failure to comply with that order may well be relevant to the question of whether or she is, in fact, in contempt of Court.
Subrule (3) of rule 374 provides that:
A party entitled to the benefit of the order may by application require the person who has not complied to show cause why an order should not be made against it.
The application filed on the 11th of August is a matter in which the plaintiff did require Ms O’Connor to show cause why an order should not be made against her. She has simply failed to do so.
In the circumstances it is, I think, appropriate to order, and I order:
(1) that there be judgment conditional upon an assessment of damages entered against the first defendant in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action in paragraphs 19 to 174 of the further amended statement of claim.
(2) the assessment of damages be conducted by the judge of this Court hearing and determining the balance of the proceedings.
(3) I will further order that the first defendant serve a copy of her list of documents pursuant to rule 214 and rule – and form 19 on or before the 14th of December 2020.
I will hear submissions in respect of costs.
I will order that the fourth defendant serve a list of documents under r 211 or an affidavit under r 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules on or before Monday 14 December. That list of documents and/or affidavit may be emailed to the plaintiff’s solicitor.