Bui v Huynh

[2011] QDC 239

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bui v Huynh [2011] QDC 239

PARTIES:

CUONG TRONG BUI
(Plaintiff)

AND

HUYNH BA PHUNG
(First defendant)

AND

ASSOCIATION OF THE VETERANS OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM ARMED FORCES (QLD CHAPTER)
(Second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D185/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2011.

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2011

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment that the first defendant pay the plaintiff $20,000.  The counterclaim is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – Defamatory Publication – whether imputations pleaded made out

DEFAMATION – Qualified Privilege at common law – whether ground for defence shown – whether malice shown

DEFAMATION – Assessment for Damages – extent of publication – significance of imputations – position of plaintiff – position of defendant – whether aggravated damages appropriate – whether exemplary damages appropriate

Defamation Act 2005 s 30(a)

Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366 – considered.
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1996) 185 CLR 183 – cited.
Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 – cited.
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspaper Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 – applied.
Cush v Dillon (2011) 85 ALJR 865 – applied.
Doelle v Bedey [2007] QCA 395 – cited.
Geddie v Rink [1935] 1 WWR 87 – cited.
Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115 – considered.
Lemaire v Smiths Newspapers Ltd (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 161 – cited.
Loveday v Sun Newspapers Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 503 – applied.
McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485 – applied.
Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219 – considered.
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 – applied.
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448 – considered.
Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1 – applied.
Tolley v Fry [1931] 1 KB 467 – not followed.
Tolley v Fry [1931] AC 333 – cited.
Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 61 – considered.
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 – cited.

COUNSEL:

P.W. Hackett for the plaintiff

S. Nguyen for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Eaton Lawyers for the plaintiff

Southside Lawyers for the defendants

1. This is an action for damages for defamation.  On about 16 February 2008 the defendant[1] caused to be distributed a number of copies of a document in the form of an open letter written by him.  The letter was written in Vietnamese; the plaintiff and the defendant are both of Vietnamese extraction.  The plaintiff alleges that the contents of this publication defamed him.  The letter was written and distributed by the defendant in his capacity as president of the Queensland Chapter of the Association of Veterans of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces.  There is a counterclaim by the defendant and that body seeking damages for defamation in respect of a speech delivered by the plaintiff at a ceremony conducted by the Queensland Chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia,[2]…