Beynon v Manthey

Case [2015] QDC 252


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Beynon v Manthey [2015] QDC 252

PARTIES:

TRAVERS BEYNON
(plaintiff)

v

MICHELLE MANTHEY
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

5975/15

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2015

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1.   I assess the damages to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant are in the sum of $25,000 together with interest in the sum of $367.

2.   I will hear the parties as to costs.  

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – whether evidence of bad character admissible

Defamation Act 2005 (Q) ss 34, 38

ABC v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430

Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44

Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 33

Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (2010) ATR 82-075; [2010] NSWCA 335

Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176

Flegg v Hallett (2015) ATR 82-231; [2015] QSC 167

Gateley on Libel and Slander 8th ed Sweet and Maxwell 1981

Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] FCA 652

Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 Q.B. 524

Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491

Sierocki & Anor v Klerk & Ors [2015] QSC 92

Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669

COUNSEL:

Mr R. Anderson for the plaintiff

The defendant is self-represented

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Legal for the plaintiff

Self-represented defendant 

Introduction

  1. This is an assessment of damages for defamation. The reason for the assessment is that the defendant failed to file a defence in this action. 

  1. Despite this the defendant appeared at the hearing of the assessment and placed evidence before the court.

Statement of claim

  1. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that he is the managing director of Cigarette and Gift Warehouse (Franchising) Pty Ltd and is the father of four children: aged 16 (“V”), 14, 4 and 3 years of age at the relevant time.

  1. The defendant was the nanny for the plaintiff’s children between 16 June 2014 and 31 March 2015.  She signed a confidentiality agreement on 4 December 2014 prohibiting her from disclosing information about the personal affairs of the plaintiff and his family.[1] 

    [1]Paragraph 2 of the statement of claim.

  1. Despite this, in or about May 2015 the defendant participated in a recorded interview with A Current Affair. 

  1. During the course of the interview, she stated:

“MM:I valued my job and I loved that family, so you turned a blind eye.

…

MM:I feel that everyone there is a puppet, like some sort of pawn in some sort of game.

…

MM:Just this crazy life with people in and out of their house.  I can understand if this is something Travers wants to do, but do it somewhere else, don’t do it in the family home.  Like shield your children away from it.

…

MM:[having been shown a photograph depicting a person eating sushi from the naked body of Taesha Beynon, or having had the…

Continue reading Beynon v Manthey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beynon v Manthey [2015] QDC 252
Case
[2015] QDC 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beynon sued Manthey for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made defamatory statements regarding the plaintiff's professional competence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue revolved around the admissibility of evidence concerning the plaintiff's bad character and whether such evidence could be considered in the assessment of damages. The court needed to determine whether evidence of the plaintiff's past conduct could be used to mitigate the damages awarded.

The court found that evidence of the plaintiff's bad character was relevant and admissible in assessing the damages. The court reasoned that where the plaintiff's character is put in issue by the defendant, evidence of the plaintiff's past conduct could be considered in determining the appropriate level of damages. The court concluded that the defamatory statements made by the defendant had caused harm to the plaintiff's professional reputation, and the evidence of the plaintiff's past conduct was relevant in assessing the extent of that harm.

The court awarded damages of $25,000 to the plaintiff, along with interest of $367. The court also indicated that it would hear the parties regarding the costs of the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of character evidence in defamation cases where the plaintiff's reputation is at stake.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I assess the damages to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant are in the sum of $25,000 together with interest in the sum of $367.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.