DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Asbog Veterinary Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Barlow [2020] QDC 112
PARTIES:
ASBOG VETERINARY SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 010 316 248
TRADING AS ALBION VETERINARY SURGERY AND EATONS HILL VETERINARY SURGERY(first plaintiff)
and
ALLEN STANISLAUS BRIAN O’GRADY
(second plaintiff)
v
CARRIE BARLOW
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
No 4809 of 2014
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
11 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 and 21 June 2019
JUDGE:
Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:
1. It is ordered that the defendant pay to the first plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $10,000 plus interest in the amount of $1,697.72.
2. It is ordered that the defendant pay to the second plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $15,000 plus interest in the amount of $2,546.57.
3. The defendant is permanently restrained, by herself and/or her servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published the words set out in the First to Seventh Publications or words to the like effect.
4. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 25 June 2020.
5. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:
the plaintiffs file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 2 July 2020;(i)
the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 9 July 2020; and(ii)
the plaintiffs file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Monday, 16 July 2020.(iii)
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – INTERNET PUBLICATIONS – SOCIAL MEDIA – where plaintiffs sued in respect of seven separate comments made on Twitter, Facebook and True Local – where defendant admits to publication of seven publications of and concerning plaintiffs – where plaintiffs allege that these publications give rise to defamatory imputations – whether the alleged imputations are coveyed – whether the alleged imputations are defamatory of the plaintiffs
DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PARTIES – WHO MAY SUE – where defendant submits first plaintiff has no cause of action for defamation as it was not an excluded corporation at the time of the publication – whether the first plaintiff is an excluded corporation pursuant to s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)
DEFAMATION – JUSTIFICATION – TRUTH – SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH AND CONTEXTUAL TRUTH –where the defendant seeks to establish defence of substantial truth or justification – whether the words of each of the defamatory imputations contained in the publications were true and justified pursuant to s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)
DEFAMATION – OTHER DEFENCES – HONEST OPINION – where in respect of six publications defendant seeks to establish defence of honest opinion – whether words of the six publications were honest opinions rather than statements of fact pursuant to s 31 of the
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Asbog Veterinary Services Pty Ltd v Barlow and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QDC 112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the comments made by Barlow were defamatory, as they conveyed the imputation that the plaintiffs were unfit to run a veterinary practice. Regarding the eligibility of the first plaintiff to sue, the court determined that it was not an excluded corporation under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The defence of justification was rejected, as the court found that the comments were not substantially or contextually true. The court also dismissed the defence of honest opinion, as the comments were not based on proper material and did not relate to matters of public interest. As a result, the plaintiffs were awarded damages and injunctive relief.
In conclusion, the court ordered Barlow to pay damages to the plaintiffs, with interest, and permanently restrained her from re-publishing the defamatory comments. If the parties could not agree on costs, they were required to file written submissions by specified dates. This case highlights the importance of considering the nature of online publications and the potential legal consequences of defamatory comments on social media.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. It is ordered that the defendant pay to the first plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $10,000 plus interest in the amount of $1,697.72.
2. It is ordered that the defendant pay to the second plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $15,000 plus interest in the amount of $2,546.57.
3. The defendant is permanently restrained, by herself and/or her servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published the words set out in the First to Seventh Publications or words to the like effect.
4. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 25 June 2020.
5. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:
the plaintiffs file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 2 July 2020;(i)
the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length, excluding any attachments by 4:00pm, Thursday, 9 July 2020; and(ii)
the plaintiffs file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Monday, 16 July 2020.(iii)
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.