Bell v Bailey & Anor (Appeal)

In Bell v Bailey & Anor, Mr Bell appeals against the decision of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) which found that Ms Bailey had provided evidence of service of a concerns notice before commencing proceedings, and that the publication of defamatory statements about Ms Bailey caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation. Mr Bell's primary contentions were that the Tribunal erred in proceeding in his absence and that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ms Bailey served the concerns notice and that the publication caused serious harm. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The primary legal issues were whether the Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Bell had not been served with a concerns notice and whether the evidence supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the publication caused serious harm. The Court had to determine if the evidence was sufficient to establish that the concerns notice was served to Mr Bell and whether the publication of defamatory statements caused serious harm to Ms Bailey's reputation.

The Court found that Mr Bell had not discharged his onus of proving that the Original Tribunal erred in proceeding in his absence. The Court concluded that Ms Bailey had provided sufficient evidence of service of the concerns notice, including that Mr Bell operated the Facebook page which was served by Messenger application, and that Mr Bell had read and had the opportunity to respond to the notice. The Court also found that the evidence supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the publication of defamatory statements caused serious harm to Ms Bailey's reputation. The evidence included the seriousness of the imputations, the number of people who had viewed the video, and the likelihood of reputational damage.

The Tribunal orders that the appeal is dismissed.