D.G. Certifiers Pty Ltd & Another v Hawksworth [2018] QDC 88
PARTIES:
D.G. CERTIFIERS PTY LTD (first plaintiff)
and
DARRYL ANTONY GREEN (second plaintiff)
v
STEVEN GEORGE HAWKSWORTH (defendant)
FILE NO/S:
3749 of 2015
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
DELIVERED ON:
17 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 - 10, 21 and 23 November 2017
JUDGE:
Rosengren DCJ
ORDER:
The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed. 1.
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF – IDENTIFICATION – where the defendant posted reviews pertaining to both plaintiffs on various review websites – where the second plaintiff was not named in full in any of the reviews published – whether second plaintiff sufficiently identifiable
DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – PLEADINGS – whether the imputations alleged by the plaintiffs made out – whether imputations defamatory
DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – COMMON LAW – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE – where the defendant pleaded the defence of qualified privilege at common law - where the reviews were published online – where the plaintiffs’ argued that the publication of the reviews was motivated by express malice – whether the reviews were published to the world at large - whether publication occurred on a privileged occasion – whether community of interest – whether defendant motivated by express malice
DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – STATUTORY – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - where the defendant pleaded the defence of statutory qualified privilege – whether the defendant’s conduct in publishing the reviews was reasonable in all the circumstances
DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – STATUTORY – HONEST OPINION – where the defendant pleaded the defence of honest opinion – whether an ordinary, reasonable reader would consider the reviews to be statements of opinion – whether the reviews addressed a matter of public interest – whether views honestly held
DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – TRIVIALITY – where the defendant sought to rely on the defence of triviality – whether defendant discharged onus to show that the plaintiffs were unlikely to suffer harm from the publications
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES –ASSESSMENT – GRAPEVINE EFFECT – where the plaintiffs sought to rely on the grapevine effect in the assessment of damages – where reviews were posted online – whether readers of the reviews were likely to tell other people about them
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES - AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – where the plaintiffs claimed aggravated damages – defendant’s conduct of litigation – lack of apology – publication for improper purpose - whether plaintiffs entitled to aggravated damages
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading D.G. Certifiers Pty Ltd v Hawksworth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
D.G. Certifiers Pty Ltd v Hawksworth [2018] QDC 88
Case
[2018] QDC 88
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
D.G. Certifiers Pty Ltd and another plaintiff brought an action against Hawksworth for defamation. The defendants posted reviews relating to the plaintiffs on various review websites. The second plaintiff was not named in full in any of the reviews, but the plaintiffs argued that they were sufficiently identifiable. The defendants raised several defences, including qualified privilege at common law and under statute, honest opinion, and triviality. The plaintiffs also sought to rely on the grapevine effect in the assessment of damages and claimed aggravated damages due to the defendant’s conduct of litigation.
The court considered whether the reviews amounted to defamation, whether the imputations alleged were made out, and whether the defences were available. The court found that the second plaintiff was not sufficiently identifiable and dismissed the claims on that basis. The court also found that the defence of qualified privilege at common law was not available as the reviews were published to the world at large and were not motivated by express malice. The court found that the defence of statutory qualified privilege was also not available as the publication of the reviews was not reasonable in all the circumstances. The court found that the defence of honest opinion was available as an ordinary, reasonable reader would consider the reviews to be statements of opinion, and the views were honestly held. The court found that the defence of triviality was not available as the defendant did not discharge the onus to show that the plaintiffs were unlikely to suffer harm from the publications.
The court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on the grapevine effect in the assessment of damages as the reviews were posted online and it was unlikely that readers would tell other people about them. The court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to aggravated damages as the defendant’s conduct of litigation did not warrant such an award.