Anthony v Rockett - [1999] QCA 434

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Anthony v Rockett [1999] QCA 434
PARTIES: ANTHONY, Frosso
(First Defendant/Appellant)
AND
THE PROPRIETORS “THE SANDS” BUP 82
(Second Defendant)
v
ROCKETT, Lynette Joy
(First Plaintiff/First Respondent)
AND
DEVENCORN, Ross Robert
(Second Plaintiff/Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7664 of 1998 District Court 546 of 1999
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against judgment for damages for defamation
ORIGINATING District Court, Southport
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 22 October 1999
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 21 September 1999
JUDGES: McPherson JA, Thomas JA, Ambrose J
ORDER: Appeal allowed with costs; set aside judgment below; in lieu
award judgment in favour of first defendant with costs
including reserved costs if any.
CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - STATUTORY EVIDENCE – SCOPE OF
DEFENCE – ONUS OF PROOF
Absence of good faith – Whether publishing the defamatory
material was actuated by ill will.
Clines v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1966) 84 WN

(Pt 2) (NSW) 86, 97.
Pervan v North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd [1991] Aust
Torts R, at 69, 81-119, 125

Plumb v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd [1975] 2 NSWLR
414, 430

Rigby v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1966) 68 SR (NSW) 414,
426

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531, 551.
Building Units & Group Title Act 1980 s 43(I)(j)
Defamation Act 1889 s 16(1)e, s 16(2), s 17.

COUNSEL: Mr A Barlow for the appellants
Mr P Favell for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS: Clayton Utz for the appellants
Thynne & Macartney for the first and second respondent

THE COURT: This is an appeal against a judgment for damages for defamation in favour of the plaintiffs in an action tried without a jury in the District Court at Southport. The trial occupied some 15 sitting days or so, and generated a judgment spanning 78 pages of detailed reasons resulting, however, in awards totalling no more than $21,000.00.
"The Sands" is an apartment building containing 99 residential units situated at Surfers Paradise on land which is the subject of a registered building units plan. Few of the unit proprietors or owners live in their units; most are residents of other States or countries who use their units for letting to visiting tourists and others. Among the few who are, and in 1995 were, locally resident on the Gold Coast are Mrs Lynette Rockett and her husband Mr Devencorn, who are the successful first and second plaintiffs in the action and the respondents to this appeal. In 1995 they, or perhaps a company under their control, owned a unit in the building. By the time of trial, they had a considerably larger number of some nine units in "The Sands", and were engaged in a business of letting units in the building.
Section 27(1) of the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 constitutes the proprietors of such a building a body corporate. The body corporate of The Sands is the second defendant in the action and was originally an appellant in this Court, although its appeal has now been…

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 Anthony v Rockett

Details

AGLC: Anthony v Rockett [1999] QCA 434
Case: [1999] QCA 434
Decision Date: 22/10/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anthony v Rockett involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Anthony, and two defendants, Rockett and another party. The crux of the matter was the alleged defamation, with the plaintiff claiming that the defendants had published defamatory statements about him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the appeal subsequently brought before a higher court. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the statutory evidence, the scope of the defence, and the onus of proof in defamation cases. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the defendants had acted in good faith and whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support his claims.

The court examined the statutory evidence provided by the plaintiff and considered whether it was adequate to prove the alleged defamation. The defence argued that they had acted in good faith and that the plaintiff had not met the necessary burden of proof. The court analysed the nature of the evidence and the standard required to establish defamation. It considered whether the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to shift the onus of proof to the defendants. The court also looked at whether there was any evidence of the absence of good faith on the part of the defendants, which could potentially negate the defence.

In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the defamation claims. The court determined that the statutory evidence was not enough to discharge the plaintiff's burden of proof. Additionally, the court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants acted without good faith. As a result, the court held that the defendants were entitled to the defence, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment in favour of the plaintiff was set aside. Instead, the court awarded judgment to the first defendant, Rockett, with costs, including reserved costs if any.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed with costs; set aside judgment below; in lieu

award judgment in favour of first defendant with costs

including reserved costs if any.

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:	Anthony v Rockett [1999] QCA 434
PARTIES:	ANTHONY, Frosso (First Defendant/Appellant)
AND
THE PROPRIETORS “THE SANDS” BUP 82 (Second Defendant)
v
ROCKETT, Lynette Joy (First Plaintiff/First Respondent)
AND
DEVENCORN, Ross Robert (Second Plaintiff/Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7664 of 1998 District Court 546 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against judgment for damages for defamation
ORIGINATING	District Court, Southport
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	22 October 1999
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 September 1999
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Thomas JA, Ambrose J
ORDER:	Appeal allowed with costs; set aside judgment below; in lieu award judgment in favour of first defendant with costs including reserved costs if any.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION - STATUTORY EVIDENCE – SCOPE OF DEFENCE – ONUS OF PROOF Absence of good faith – Whether publishing the defamatory material was actuated by ill will.
Clines v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1966) 84 WN

COUNSEL:	Mr A Barlow for the appellants Mr P Favell for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:	Clayton Utz for the appellants Thynne & Macartney for the first and second respondent