Anderson v Gregory - [2008] QCA 419

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Anderson v Gregory [2008] QCA 419

PARTIES:

WAYNE MACARTHUR ANDERSON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
PETER LIONEL GREGORY
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6682 of 2008
DC No 1637 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – JUSTIFICATION – GENERALLY – where respondent obtained judgment against applicant in respect of seven defamations, which occurred in a newsletter and emails – where applicant contested findings as to defamatory nature of some of the defamations – where applicant sought to justify various defamations on grounds including fair comment and truth – where applicant required leave to appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether applicant demonstrated a reasonable argument that there was error in the decision below, and that he suffered a substantial injustice by reason of that error, as required by s 118

Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 14(1)(d), s 15
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 25, s 26, s 49
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), Pt 2

Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842; [1985] HCA 61, applied
Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 50 ALJR 666, applied
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491; [1988] HCA 12, applied
SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P A Kronberg for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R D Martin & Co for the respondent

McMURDO P: The applicant, Peter Lionel Gregory, was ordered to pay the respondent, Wayne MacArthur Anderson, $37,500 by way of damages for defamation after a four day trial in the District Court. The applicant requires leave to appeal from that decision because the amount of damages was less than the amount of the Magistrates Court jurisdictional limit,[1] presently $50,000.[2] For the reasons given by Holmes JA, the applicant has not demonstrated any reason warranting the granting of leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal should be refused with costs.
[1]District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3).
[2]Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), Pt 2.

HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave, pursuant to s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), to appeal a judgment given against him in a defamation action. In order to obtain leave, the applicant must show that he has a reasonable argument that there was error in the decision below and that he has suffered a substantial injustice by reason of it. It is appropriate to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Gregory

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Gregory [2008] QCA 419
Case: [2008] QCA 419
Decision Date: 23 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the parties Anderson and Gregory, who were disputing the outcome of a defamation case. The District Court of Queensland had previously delivered a judgment against Anderson, finding him liable for seven instances of defamation that occurred in a newsletter and emails. Anderson sought to appeal this decision, contesting both the findings regarding the defamatory nature of certain statements and the lack of justification for some of the defamatory content. The grounds for justification that Anderson proposed included fair comment and truth.

The legal issues before the court were whether Anderson had demonstrated a reasonable argument that there was an error in the decision below, and whether he had suffered a substantial injustice as a result of this potential error. Anderson needed to satisfy the requirements set out under section 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) to obtain leave to appeal. The court needed to assess the strength of the arguments presented by Anderson regarding both the defamatory nature of the statements and the validity of the justifications he had proposed.

The court found that Anderson had not demonstrated a reasonable argument that there was an error in the decision below. The findings regarding the defamatory nature of the statements were upheld, and the court found that the justifications proposed by Anderson were insufficient. The court concluded that Anderson had not suffered a substantial injustice, and therefore dismissed his application for leave to appeal. As a result, the costs of the appeal were ordered to be paid by Anderson.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Anderson v Gregory [2008] QCA 419
PARTIES:	WAYNE MACARTHUR ANDERSON (plaintiff/respondent) v PETER LIONEL GREGORY (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6682 of 2008 DC No 1637 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – JUSTIFICATION – GENERALLY – where respondent obtained judgment against applicant in respect of seven defamations, which occurred in a newsletter and emails – where applicant contested findings as to defamatory nature of some of the defamations – where applicant sought to justify various defamations on grounds including fair comment and truth – where applicant required leave to appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – whether applicant demonstrated a reasonable argument that there was error in the decision below, and that he suffered a substantial injustice by reason of that error, as required by s 118 Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 14(1)(d), s 15 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 25, s 26, s 49 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118 Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), Pt 2 Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842; [1985] HCA 61, applied Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 50 ALJR 666, applied Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491; [1988] HCA 12, applied SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37, applied
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf P A Kronberg for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R D Martin & Co for the respondent