Doelle v Bedey - [2007] QCA 395

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Doelle v Bedey [2007] QCA 395

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS JAMES DOELLE
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
HEIKE M BEDEY
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6268 of 2007
DC No 2199 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

16 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2007

JUDGES:

Williams, Keane and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – MEANING AND PROOF – where respondent spoke defamatory words to the appellant – whether learned trial judge correct in finding there was no publication of the defamatory material to any third party

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
The respondent appeared on her own behalf

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
The respondent appeared on her own behalf

WILLIAMS JA: I agree with Keane JA.

KEANE JA:
The appellant was the unsuccessful plaintiff in proceedings against the respondent for damages for defamation. The appellant sued in respect of defamatory statements allegedly made by the respondent to third persons on

31 January 2005 and 12 February 2005. In respect of each occasion, the learned trial judge held that the appellant's case was not made out, and dismissed the appellant's action.

Both the appellant and the respondent were unrepresented at trial and on appeal.

The appeal to this Court concerns only the alleged defamation of 12 February 2005. The learned trial judge found that the respondent spoke defamatory words to the appellant. This finding was based largely on the evidence of a recording of their conversation made surreptitiously by the appellant. His Honour said:

"… I am … nevertheless, satisfied after listening to the tape and notwithstanding the difficulties it presents that Mrs Bedey did say words of the kind set out in the passage of transcript recited above. She can be heard on it, saying those things.
Mr Doelle's Statement of Claim alleges that the imputation (For the purposes of s 4(1) of the Defamation Act 1889) arising from her words is that he '…murdered a man who was his previous landlord'. Both in their ordinary meaning, and in context, this imputation is not unreasonable and the words are, on their face, defamatory (Ibid; and see, eg, Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716)."[1]

[1]Doelle v Bedey [2007] QDC 134 at [24] – [25] (citations footnoted in original).

The basis on which the appellant's claim was rejected by the learned trial judge was that his Honour did not accept that anyone else heard the defamatory statement which his Honour found was made by the respondent to the appellant on that date. His Honour said:

"The first difficulty for the plaintiff is, however, the absence of persuasive evidence that they were published to anyone. The only other persons possibly present were Mr Zellner and Mr Smith and, in…

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] QCA 395
Case: [2007] QCA 395
Decision Date: 16 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Doelle v Bedey, the dispute revolves around an allegation of defamation. The appellant, Doelle, brought the case against the respondent, Bedey, after Bedey allegedly made defamatory statements about Doelle to a third party. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the learned trial judge was correct in finding that there was no publication of the defamatory material to any third party.

The court examined the evidence presented to determine if the defamatory words were indeed spoken by the respondent to a third party. The appellant argued that the publication did occur, while the respondent maintained that there was no publication to any third party. The court considered the nature of the alleged defamatory words, the circumstances in which they were spoken, and the presence or absence of a third party to whom the words were directed. The central legal question was whether the trial judge appropriately assessed the evidence and correctly interpreted the meaning and proof of publication in the context of defamation.

The court concluded that the learned trial judge's findings on the absence of publication to a third party were soundly based on the evidence. The court found that the trial judge's assessment of the circumstances and the nature of the alleged defamatory words was appropriate, and there was insufficient evidence to support the appellant's claim of publication to a third party. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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] QCA 395
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS JAMES DOELLE (plaintiff/appellant) v HEIKE M BEDEY (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6268 of 2007 DC No 2199 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	16 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2007
JUDGES:	Williams, Keane and Muir JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – MEANING AND PROOF – where respondent spoke defamatory words to the appellant – whether learned trial judge correct in finding there was no publication of the defamatory material to any third party
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf The respondent appeared on her own behalf
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf The respondent appeared on her own behalf