BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd v Hayes - [2021] QDC 111

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd & Ors v Hayes [2021] QDC 111

PARTIES:

BEAUTYFULL CMC PTY LTD

ACN 155 002 627

(first plaintiff)

and
MARK SCRUTON SOWDEN
(second plaintiff)
and
KATE SCRUTON BELCHER
(third plaintiff)
and
MARGARET JOANNE SCRUTON

(fourth plaintiff)

v

CLAIRE ELIZABETH HAYES

(defendant)

FILE NO:

2222/2020

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2021

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 and 16 March 2021

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the 1^st plaintiff in the sum of $20,660.

2.   Judgment for the 2^nd plaintiff in the sum of $20,660.

3.   Judgment for the 3^rd plaintiff in the sum of $12,912.

4.   Judgment for the 4^th plaintiff in the sum of $30,990.

5.   The defendant, whether by herself, her servants or agents is prohibited from causing to be published whether orally or in writing or by email or electronic means, or by way of publication on any social media platform such as but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, any publication which has the effect of defaming the first, second, third or fourth plaintiffs.

6.   I will hear submissions as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – INJUNCTIONS – where publications complained of distributed on social media platforms – where plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain defendant from distributing further publications – where imputations alleged in publications were intentionally false – where injunction granted

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – where plaintiffs sought aggravated and compensatory damages – whether conduct of defendant improper or unjustifiable – whether reasonable reader likely to give social media post credence – where plaintiffs incurred injury to reputation, public hurt and embarrassment – where damages awarded

LEGISLATION:

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 9, 25, 33, 36, 38

CASES:

Brose v Baluskas & Ors (No 6) 2020 QDC 15
Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd& Anor [2016] 1 Qd R 89
Gluyas v Junior 2013 VSC 3
Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115

Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652

COUNSEL:
A P J Collins for all plaintiffs

The defendant was self-represented

SOLICITORS:
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for all plaintiffs

Introduction

Each of the plaintiffs sues the defendant for damages, including aggravated and compensatory damages, together with interest, and seeks an injunction restraining her from further publishing any defamatory publication concerning them. There are four allegedly defamatory publications. What is called the first publication is said to be defamatory of the first and fourth plaintiffs. The second publication relates to all plaintiffs and the third and fourth publications, which are themselves closely related in time, relate only to the second and third plaintiffs. The defendant defends the matter on a number of grounds, including that the publications pleaded are not defamatory of the plaintiffs, or any of them. Furthermore, the defendant pleads that publication of the first and second publications, if defamatory of one or more of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd v Hayes 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QDC 111
Decision Date: 16 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd and three other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking both an injunction and damages for defamation. The defendant, previously employed by the first plaintiff as a receptionist, made several posts on social media that were alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent further defamatory publications, as well as aggravated and compensatory damages for the harm caused by the defendant's posts. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's posts were defamatory, whether they were intentionally false, and whether the plaintiffs had suffered injury to their reputations, public hurt, and embarrassment as a result.

The court found that the defendant's posts were indeed defamatory and that the imputations made in the posts were intentionally false. The court also found that the reasonable reader would likely give credence to the social media posts and that the plaintiffs had suffered injury to their reputations, public hurt, and embarrassment. As a result, the court granted the injunction sought by the plaintiffs, prohibiting the defendant from publishing any further defamatory material about them. The court also awarded damages to the plaintiffs, with the amount varying depending on the individual plaintiff.

The court ordered that the defendant be prohibited from causing to be published any material that defames the plaintiffs, either orally, in writing, by email or electronic means, or on any social media platform. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs be awarded damages, with the first plaintiff receiving $20,660, the second plaintiff receiving $20,660, the third plaintiff receiving $12,912, and the fourth plaintiff receiving $30,990. The court reserved the right to hear submissions as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the 1st plaintiff in the sum of $20,660.

2. Judgment for the 2nd plaintiff in the sum of $20,660.

3. Judgment for the 3rd plaintiff in the sum of $12,912.

4. Judgment for the 4th plaintiff in the sum of $30,990.

5. The defendant, whether by herself, her servants or agents is prohibited from causing to be published whether orally or in writing or by email or electronic means, or by way of publication on any social media platform such as but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, any publication which has the effect of defaming the first, second, third or fourth plaintiffs.

6. I will hear submissions as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Many of the matters pleaded in the plaintiffs’ case were admitted in the defence, deemed to be admitted because of the defendant’s failure to respond to a notice to admit facts, or are undisputed on the evidence. Background The first plaintiff conducts a cosmetic medical clinic, referred to as BeautyFULL. It is an “excluded corporation” within the meaning of s 9(2) of the Act. The second plaintiffs is currently the company’s sole director, secretary and manager. The fourth plaintiff is the mother of the second and third plaintiffs and is a general practitioner of significant experience, having been first registered as a medical practitioner in 1978. BeautyFULL was founded by the third and fourth defendants in January 2012. The fourth plaintiff at all times owned one third of the business. She was a director of the first plaintiff until she resigned from that role on 25 December 2018. The third plaintiff is a nurse and works in the clinic. She was until 25 December 2018 also a director but on that date resigned from that role. The third plaintiff is trustee for a family trust which owns two thirds of the shareholding of the first plaintiff. Since about 1998, the fourth plaintiff has also worked as a general practitioner at a clinic in Morningside. She gave evidence that in that role, she had referred a number of patients for COVID-19 tests prior to the end of March 2020. The defendant was employed by the first plaintiff as a receptionist at the clinic from 15 August 2016 to 16 October 2018. She is now the partner of Guy Belcher who was, until 2018, married to the third plaintiff. Mr Belcher was until 17 July 2018 a director of the first plaintiff. Shane Mundey has been a client of BeautyFULL since 19 August 2019 and was at least in May 2020 in a relationship with the third plaintiff. In 2018, the defendant had an Instagram account with 1,844 followers. The first plaintiff also conducted its own Instagram account with 19,700 followers. After the defendant left her employment with the first plaintiff in October 2018, she has had some ongoing mental health issues including periods of hospitalisation. It can be seen that the parties’ personal circumstances were such that there was significant potential for disagreement.The first publication Prior 30 March 2020, the first plaintiff’s Instagram account included images of the fourth plaintiff, widely known to customers of BeautyFULL and of the Morningside clinic as Dr Margaret. It also included images of the third plaintiff. An image of the fourth plaintiff was uplifted onto the BeautyFULL Instagram account at about that time with the caption:“Dr Margaret serving during COVID-19.”A trophy, such as one might receive for winning a sporting competition, was below it, presumably to indicate to those who viewed the post that the first plaintiff and those involved in the company were proud that the fourth plaintiff was “serving during COVID-19.” The fourth plaintiff had at that time either stopped work, or was about to stop working, in the BeautyFULL clinic, which closed its doors at about that time due to the effect of COVID-19 and the then Government regulations. The reference to her serving during COVID-19 was said in her evidence, and that of the second plaintiff, to be a reference to her working at the Morningside clinic to which I earlier referred. She did refer patients at that clinic for testing for COVID.

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:	BeautyFULL CMC Pty Ltd & Ors v Hayes [2021] QDC 111
PARTIES:	BEAUTYFULL CMC PTY LTD ACN 155 002 627 (first plaintiff) and MARK SCRUTON SOWDEN (second plaintiff) and KATE SCRUTON BELCHER (third plaintiff) and MARGARET JOANNE SCRUTON (fourth plaintiff) v CLAIRE ELIZABETH HAYES (defendant)
FILE NO:	2222/2020
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2021
DELIVERED AT:	District Court at Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 and 16 March 2021
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the 1^st plaintiff in the sum of $20,660. 2. Judgment for the 2^nd plaintiff in the sum of $20,660. 3. Judgment for the 3^rd plaintiff in the sum of $12,912. 4. Judgment for the 4^th plaintiff in the sum of $30,990. 5. The defendant, whether by herself, her servants or agents is prohibited from causing to be published whether orally or in writing or by email or electronic means, or by way of publication on any social media platform such as but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, any publication which has the effect of defaming the first, second, third or fourth plaintiffs. 6. I will hear submissions as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – INJUNCTIONS – where publications complained of distributed on social media platforms – where plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain defendant from distributing further publications – where imputations alleged in publications were intentionally false – where injunction granted DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – where plaintiffs sought aggravated and compensatory damages – whether conduct of defendant improper or unjustifiable – whether reasonable reader likely to give social media post credence – where plaintiffs incurred injury to reputation, public hurt and embarrassment – where damages awarded
LEGISLATION:	Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 9, 25, 33, 36, 38
CASES:	Brose v Baluskas & Ors (No 6) 2020 QDC 15 Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd& Anor [2016] 1 Qd R 89 Gluyas v Junior 2013 VSC 3 Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652
COUNSEL:	A P J Collins for all plaintiffs The defendant was self-represented
SOLICITORS:	McInnes Wilson Lawyers for all plaintiffs