Bill Karageozis as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Siobhan Lamb v Sherman

Bill Karageozis, as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Siobhan Lamb, initiated proceedings against Sherman to address defamatory statements made by Ms Lamb to a police officer, which Sherman claimed defamed him. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the primary judge had previously ruled in favour of Sherman. The primary judge found that Ms Lamb's oral communication to the police contained defamatory content, although Sherman contended that four specific imputations were conveyed. Sherman further argued that the primary judge misapplied the law in determining that the communication was not made under qualified privilege and that Ms Lamb did not act out of malice in making the complaint to the police. Additionally, Ms Lamb's defence of triviality was rejected by the primary judge, which she sought to challenge.

The appeal centred on several legal issues. The court had to determine whether the primary judge correctly identified the imputations made in Ms Lamb's statement, assess the applicability of the qualified privilege defence, and evaluate whether Sherman's malice rebutted any privilege that might have applied. Finally, the court had to consider whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the defence of triviality as provided for in the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The court found that the primary judge misapplied the law in several respects. The imputations identified by Sherman were not substantiated in the communication, the qualified privilege was not correctly applied, and the primary judge erred in concluding that Ms Lamb acted out of malice. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge did not properly consider the defence of triviality, leading to an incorrect outcome.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the primary judge. The court ordered judgment in favour of Sherman, dismissing Ms Lamb's defamation claim. Sherman was also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The parties were directed to file written submissions regarding the costs of the District Court proceedings, with the final determination of those costs to be made on the papers submitted. This decision underscores the importance of correctly identifying defamatory imputations, applying the principles of qualified privilege, and considering all available defences, including triviality, in defamation cases.