Derek Brammall v Benedict Ian Stevens

Case [2023] ACTMC 24

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Derek Brammall v Benedict Ian Stevens

Citation:

[2023] ACTMC 24

Hearing Dates:

31 May 2023 and 3 July 2023

DecisionDate:

7 July 2023

Before:

Magistrate J Campbell

Decision:

1.    Judgment will be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $35,000.

2.    The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings being $2,025.

Catchwords:

CIVIL LAW – defamation – application for default judgment – publication and identification – whether publication is defamatory – serious harm to be found as element of cause of action – assessment of damages

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 118(2), 122A, 124A, 124B, 139E, 139J

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1117, 1118, 1126(2), 1126(6), 6700(3)
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A

Cases Cited:

Stewart v Coughlan (1885) 11 VLR 279

Reid v Dukic [2016] ACTSC 344
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460
Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and another [2020] AC 612
Robert Lewis Wilks v Dori Qu [2022] VCC 620
Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198
Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183

Parties:

Derek Brammall (Plaintiff)

Benedict Ian Stevens (Defendant)

Solicitors

Richard John McGilvray (Plaintiff)

File Number:

CS 170 of 2022

MAGISTRATE J CAMPBELL

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff, Derek Brammall commenced proceedings by Originating Claim filed 10 November 2022 and refiled on 18 November 2022 seeking damages in defamation against the defendant, Benedict Ian Stevens, arising from two emails the defendant sent to a number of people in September 2022.

  2. On 25 January 2023, the Court ordered that service of the Originating Claim, statement of claim and other documents was taken to have been effected on the Defendant on 19 December 2022.  Leave was granted to the defendant to file his Notice of Intention to Respond or defence out of time and within 28 days of the Order.

  3. The plaintiff by Application dated 27 February 2023 seeks default judgment following the defendant’s failure to file a Notice of Intention to Respond or defence (Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1117). This failure allows the Court to find the defendant admits the facts upon which the claim is made (Stewart v Coughlan (1885) 11 VLR 279; Reid v Dukic [2016] ACTSC 344).

  4. Rule 1126(6) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (‘the Rules’) provides that ‘[t]he court may enter judgment under this division (other than rule 1126) in favour of the plaintiff without a hearing.’ This rule applies to the present matter as the plaintiff is not entitled to apply for default judgment under r 1126. 

  5. The matter came before me for hearing on 29 March 2023.  Prior to handing down my decision, I became aware the defendant had not been informed of the date of the hearing, although he had been advised of the listings for 8 March 2023 and 22 March 2023, which he did not attend.…

Continue reading Derek Brammall v Benedict Ian Stevens

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Derek Brammall v Benedict Ian Stevens [2023] ACTMC 24
Case
[2023] ACTMC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Derek Brammall initiated legal proceedings against Benedict Ian Stevens in the Federal Circuit Court, asserting claims of defamation. Brammall contends that Stevens published defamatory statements about him on social media, which have caused harm to his reputation. The case revolves around whether the published statements are indeed defamatory, and if so, the extent of the damages incurred. Stevens has not responded to the claims, leading Brammall to apply for a default judgment. The court's task is to determine whether the alleged publications are defamatory and, if affirmed, to assess the appropriate damages.

The primary legal issues before the court involve the identification of whether the statements made by Stevens were defamatory and the extent of the harm caused by such publications. Additionally, the court must consider the elements required to establish defamation, including the identification of the plaintiff in the defamatory matter. Since Stevens did not contest the application, the court must ascertain if the onus shifts to Brammall to prove the defamatory nature of the statements and the resultant damages.

The court found that the statements made by Stevens were indeed defamatory and identified Brammall within the context of the posts. The defamatory content was deemed serious, impacting Brammall's professional and personal reputation. The court assessed the harm caused and determined the appropriate damages, concluding that Brammall suffered significant reputational harm. Given Stevens' failure to respond, the court entered judgment in Brammall's favour for the sum of $35,000 and ordered Stevens to pay Brammall's costs of $2,025.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment will be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $35,000.

2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings being $2,025.

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.