Anthony Albert Twining v Jacqueline Anne Curtis

ANTHONY ALBERT TWINING v JACQUELINE ANNE CURTIS
 [2013] ACTSC 149 (8 August 2013)

TORT – INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD – elements of tort – statements made in context of employment – whether statement false – whether statement malicious – whether statement caused actual damage

Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680
Bradley v Wu [2013] ACTSC 67
Clavel v Savage [2013] NSWSC 775
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd [2012] FCA 242
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388
Twining v Curtis [2010] ACTSC 115
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57

No. SC 178 of 2007

Judge:             Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               8 August 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 178 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

BETWEEN:ANTHONY ALBERT TWINING

Plaintiff          

AND:JACQUELINE ANNE CURTIS

Defendant  

ORDER

Judge:  Master Mossop
Date:  8 August 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There is judgment for the defendant with costs.

1. These proceedings involve an action for damages based on the tort of injurious falsehood.  The plaintiff claims that on three identified dates in 2004 the defendant maliciously published statements about the plaintiff that were false.  The plaintiff claims that the conduct has injured his pecuniary interests and alleges that he has suffered actual pecuniary loss.  As a consequence of a direction of the Court, the plaintiff provided a schedule which indicates that his claim for past loss up to 31 December 2012 is $505,448.  He also makes a claim for future damages.  The damages are said to arise from his inability to obtain paid employment as a consequence of the publication of the three statements.

1. The plaintiff was employed by the Australian Public Service Commission between 7 June 2004 and 5 November 2004.  He was employed as an ongoing employee and paid at the APS 4 level.  His employment was subject to a probation condition.  Ultimately, his employment was terminated as a consequence of what occurred during his period of probation.  The defendant was employed by the Commission in the position of Director of Human Resources and head of the Strategic Human Resources and Communications Branch within the Corporate Services and Support Group. 

1. The three statements which are said to amount to injurious falsehood are as follows.

a)   It is alleged that on or about 16 June 2004 the defendant said to Christine Flynn, the head of the Leadership, Learning and Development Group to whom the plaintiff was the executive assistant, that the plaintiff had “commented inappropriately” in discussing the circumstances of his engagement by the Commission with another employee, Joanne Zappia, and that Ms Zappia “could have appealed” the plaintiff’s engagement or words to that effect.

b)   On 20 September 2004 it is alleged that the defendant said to Ms Flynn, in the plaintiff’s presence, that Ms Zappia “could have appealed” the plaintiff’s engagement.

c)   It is alleged that on 20 October 2004 the defendant said to Ross Davidson, who was by that time the plaintiff’s “line…