Doelle v Bedey - [2007] QDC 134

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Doelle v Bedey [2007] QDC 134

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS JAMES DOELLE

Plaintiff

V

HEIKE M BEDEY

Defendant

FILE NO/S:

Toowoomba D71/2005; Brisbane BD 2199/2006

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland, Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2007

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson SC, DCJ

ORDER:

1 Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

2 Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – SLANDER – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - report by defendant to police officer – circumstances in which made – whether occasion of qualified privilege – whether defence under Defamation Act 1889, s 16, arises

DEFAMATION – SLANDER – CIRCUMSTANCES OF TRIVIALITY – unrepresented defendant – defence not pleaded – whether circumstances trivial

Defamation Act 1889, ss 16, 20

Cases considered:

Chappell v Mirror Newspapers (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-691

Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd v Cooper (unreported, Supreme Court (SA), Doyle CJ, 28 February 1997)

Croucher v Inglis (1889) 16 R at p. 778
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Jones v Sutton [2004] NSWCA 439
Perkins v NSW Aboriginal Land Council (unreported, NSWSC, Badgery-Parker J, 15 August 1997)
Stergiou v Citibank Savings Ltd (1998) 148 FLR 244
Tipene v Apperley [1980] NZCL 1107

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff self-represented
Defendant self-represented

SOLICITORS:

This is an action for damages for defamation. Neither party was legally represented. Mr Doelle alleges he was defamed by Mrs Bedey on two occasions: the first, on 31 January 2005 when she spoke some words to a police officer; the second, on 12 February 2005, when she allegedly said some words to and about him in the presence of a real estate agent, and her de facto husband.

[2] These events occurred before the introduction of the Queensland Defamation Act 2005[1] and the previous legislation, the Defamation Act 1889, applies. Neither party was, unsurprisingly, familiar with this area of the law, or referred to the Act. The case was conducted in an unusual way. Mr Doelle, despite warnings about the risks involved, called two witnesses he said in his opening remarks would, he anticipated, either not be favourable (or actually hostile to) his evidence and his case. It was necessary to coax evidence from him about his alleged damages. Evidence in chief and cross-examination often involved statements, rather than questions. Mrs Bedey’s first language is not English, and she plainly struggled at times. Each party frequently diverted from the issues apparent from the pleadings, and it was difficult to discern what elements of their rather complex legal affairs – involving the police, the Small Claims Court, and some events referable to Residential Tenancy legislation – might be relevant.
[1]Commenced 1 January 2006: Defamation Act 2005, s 2

[3] Some things were, however, tolerably clear. Mr Doelle and his family rented some premises at 5701 New England Highway, Glenaven from Mrs Bedey in about 2002. She engaged a local real estate agent, Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Doelle v Bedey

Details

AGLC: Doelle v Bedey [2007] QDC 134
Case: [2007] QDC 134
Decision Date: 27 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Doelle, brought an action against the defendant, Bedey, for defamation. The dispute arose from a statement made by Bedey to a police officer that Doelle was a drug dealer. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that the statement was defamatory and that the defence of qualified privilege did not apply. The defendant argued that the statement was made in circumstances that invoked qualified privilege, and that the circumstances were trivial, rendering the statement not defamatory.

The court was required to determine whether the statement made by the defendant to the police officer was made in circumstances that invoked qualified privilege, and whether the circumstances were trivial. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the police officer, the context in which the statement was made, and the urgency of the situation. The court also considered whether the defendant had a duty to make the statement, and whether the statement was made honestly and without malice.

The court found that the statement made by the defendant to the police officer was made in circumstances that invoked qualified privilege. The court held that the defendant had a duty to report suspected criminal activity to the police, and that the statement was made in the course of performing that duty. The court also found that the circumstances were not trivial, as the statement had the potential to seriously damage the plaintiff’s reputation. However, the court held that the defence of qualified privilege applied, and that the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

2 Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis

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.

CITATION:	Doelle v Bedey [2007] QDC 134
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS JAMES DOELLE Plaintiff V HEIKE M BEDEY Defendant
FILE NO/S:	Toowoomba D71/2005; Brisbane BD 2199/2006
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland, Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	27 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2007
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC, DCJ
ORDER:	1 Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed 2 Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – SLANDER – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - report by defendant to police officer – circumstances in which made – whether occasion of qualified privilege – whether defence under Defamation Act 1889, s 16, arises DEFAMATION – SLANDER – CIRCUMSTANCES OF TRIVIALITY – unrepresented defendant – defence not pleaded – whether circumstances trivial Defamation Act 1889, ss 16, 20 Cases considered: Chappell v Mirror Newspapers (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-691 Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd v Cooper (unreported, Supreme Court (SA), Doyle CJ, 28 February 1997) Croucher v Inglis (1889) 16 R at p. 778 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 Jones v Sutton [2004] NSWCA 439 Perkins v NSW Aboriginal Land Council (unreported, NSWSC, Badgery-Parker J, 15 August 1997) Stergiou v Citibank Savings Ltd (1998) 148 FLR 244 Tipene v Apperley [1980] NZCL 1107
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff self-represented Defendant self-represented
SOLICITORS: