Cristian v Bottrill

Case [2016] ACAT 104

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CRISTIAN v BOTTRILL (Appeal) [2016] ACAT 104

AA 18/2016 (XD 741/2014)

Catchwords:             APPEAL – Civil Dispute – Defamation claim – review of decision on questions of fact and law – nature of appeal – no questions of fact or law identified

Legislation cited:      ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 71, 82

ACT Human Rights Act 2004 ss 12, 16

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 s 139B

Subordinate

Legislation:Court Procedure Rules 2006 r 2150

Cases cited:Bottrill v Cristian & Anor [2016] ACAT 7

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers [1929] 2 KB 331

Lee v Wilson and McKinnon (1934) 51 CLR 276

Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT [2011] ACTSC 207

Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234

The Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT [2015] ACTCA 20

The Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT(No 2) [2014] ACTSC 9

Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 149

Appeal Tribunal:                 President L Crebbin

Senior Member B Meagher SC

Date of Orders:  12 September 2016
Date of Reasons for Decision:         12 September 2016

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AA 18/2016

(XD 741/2014)

BETWEEN:

FIONA CRISTIAN

Appellant

AND:

DAVID BOTTRILL

Respondent

Appeal Tribunal:                  President L Crebbin
  Senior Member B Meagher SC

Date:  12 September 2016

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The order of the original tribunal dated 10 February 2016 is confirmed.

………………………………..

President L Crebbin for and on behalf of the Appeal Tribunal

REASONS FOR DECISION

Procedural history

  1. In 2014 David Bottrill filed an application in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘ACAT’ or the ‘tribunal’) against the appellant and her husband Arthur Cristian, alleging that they had defamed him on a website known as He sought damages, an apology and an order that the alleged defamatory material be removed from the website. When the application was heard neither the appellant nor Arthur Cristian were present. An order was made in their absence (that is, ex parte) requiring them to pay damages of $10,000 and costs of $130 to David Bottrill. They were also ordered to remove the material from the website.  

  2. We note here that the appellant asked us, for reasons of principle, to refer to her as ‘Fiona’ and we do so. It is convenient also then to refer to David Bottrill as ‘the respondent’ or as David.

  3. Fiona lodged an appeal in the tribunal but it was dismissed. Fiona then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court allowed her appeal because it was not satisfied that she had been notified of the first hearing. The Court sent the matter back (or remitted the matter) to the ACAT for another hearing. Arthur Cristian did not appeal and the initial decision against him stands.

  4. Another hearing was held on 21 October 2015. We refer to this as the original hearing. Fiona participated in this hearing by telephone. The tribunal handed down its decision…

Continue reading Cristian v Bottrill

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cristian v Bottrill [2016] 104 ACAT
Case
[2016] ACAT 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the tribunal involved Cristian, the appellant, against Bottrill, the respondent. The central dispute was a defamation claim, with the original tribunal ruling in favor of the respondent. Cristian sought a review of the tribunal’s decision, contesting the findings on both factual and legal grounds. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether there were any errors in the original tribunal's assessment that warranted overturning or modifying the decision. The court had to examine if there were any factual misapprehensions or legal misapplications that could justify a different outcome.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was to determine whether the original tribunal had erred in its findings of fact or law, which would necessitate a review of the decision. This involved scrutinising the original tribunal’s approach to the evidence presented, the interpretation of relevant legal principles, and the application of those principles to the facts as found. The tribunal needed to assess whether the original tribunal’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and whether the legal framework was correctly applied.

In its analysis, the tribunal found that the original tribunal had not made any errors in its determination of facts or law. The evidence presented supported the original tribunal's findings, and the legal principles were correctly applied. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the original decision, finding no basis for altering the outcome. The tribunal held that the appeal was without merit, as no factual or legal errors were identified that could affect the original tribunal’s decision.

The tribunal's final order confirmed the original tribunal's ruling, rejecting the appeal in its entirety. The decision was based on the absence of any identified errors in the original tribunal's findings or legal reasoning. Therefore, the original decision stood affirmed, and no further action was required.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The order of the original tribunal dated 10 February 2016 is confirmed.

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.