Bertwistle v Conquest

In Bertwistle v Conquest, the applicant sought a permanent injunction and damages for defamation against the respondent. The respondent had sent text messages to the applicant’s sister alleging that the applicant had engaged in consensual and non-consensual sexual acts with the applicant’s sisters. The applicant sought $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, an injunction, and interest on the damages awarded. The respondent did not respond to the applicant’s claim or file a notice of intention to defend, leading to the applicant applying for a default judgment.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the applicant was entitled to the relief sought, including the injunction and damages, and whether the applicant was entitled to a default judgment due to the respondent’s failure to respond to the proceedings. The court had to consider the seriousness of the defamatory statements, the impact on the applicant’s reputation, and the respondent’s failure to make an offer to make amends as required by the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).

The court found that the defamatory statements were serious and had caused significant harm to the applicant’s reputation. The court also found that the respondent’s failure to respond to the proceedings justified the granting of a default judgment. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought. The court ordered the respondent to be restrained from making or repeating the defamatory statements and to pay the applicant $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, interest on the damages awarded, and the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis.