CITATION: DOUGLAS -v- McLERNON [No 4] [2016] WASC 320
CORAM: KENNETH MARTIN J
HEARD: 20 - 23 JUNE 2016
DELIVERED : 7 OCTOBER 2016
FILE NO/S: CIV 1930 of 2012
BETWEEN: OLIVER GEORGE DOUGLAS
Plaintiff
AND
TERENCE JOHN McLERNON Defendant
FILE NO/S :CIV 2306 of 2012
BETWEEN :OLIVER GEORGE DOUGLAS
Plaintiff
AND
TONI FITZGERALD Third Defendant
LAURENCE KERRY FITZGERALD Fourth Defendant
FILE NO/S :CIV 2307 of 2012
BETWEEN :ANTHONY BILLIS
Plaintiff
AND
TERENCE JOHN McLERNON First Defendant
TONI FITZGERALD Fourth Defendant
LAURENCE KERRY FITZGERALD Fifth Defendant
FILE NO/S :CIV 2308 of 2012
BETWEEN :PAUL MATICH
Plaintiff
AND
TERENCE JOHN McLERNON First Defendant
TONI FITZGERALD Fourth Defendant
LAURENCE KERRY FITZGERALD Fifth Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Internet websites - Three plaintiffs - Trials of actions heard in sequence - Defendants in person - First defendant amends his three defences in three actions to withdraw his former admissions as to his authorship and publications - False innuendos established in most publications - Defamatory meanings established - Damages assessment - Permanent injunctions sought against first defendant - Action against fifth defendant for publishing assistance or responsibility for materials on websites
[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 Douglas v McLernon (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Douglas v McLernon (No 4) [2016] WASC 320
Case
[2016] WASC 320
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Douglas v McLernon (No 4) was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs, Mr Douglas, Mr Watson, and Mr Robertson, brought claims against the first defendant, Mr McLernon, and a fifth defendant, Mr De Garis. The plaintiffs alleged defamation by reason of various publications on the internet, including websites, blogs, and comments. The nature of the dispute involved the establishment of defamatory meanings in the publications and the assessment of damages, along with requests for permanent injunctions against the first defendant and claims against the fifth defendant for publishing assistance or responsibility for the materials.
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the publications were defamatory, the identification of the defendants as the authors or publishers, and the assessment of damages. The court also had to consider the requests for permanent injunctions and the claims against the fifth defendant for publishing assistance or responsibility. The first defendant had amended his defences to withdraw his former admissions regarding his authorship and publications, leading to further arguments on the establishment of false innuendos and the identification of the authors.
The court found that the defamatory meanings were established in most of the publications. The first defendant's attempts to withdraw his former admissions were unsuccessful, and the court identified him as the author of the publications. The court also found that the fifth defendant was responsible for publishing assistance or responsibility for the materials on the websites. Damages were assessed for each plaintiff, and the court granted permanent injunctions against the first defendant. The claims against the fifth defendant were also upheld.
The court ordered that the first defendant pay damages to each of the plaintiffs and that he be permanently restrained from publishing the defamatory material. The fifth defendant was ordered to pay damages to each of the plaintiffs for his role in publishing assistance or responsibility. The court's final orders included the enforcement of the permanent injunctions and the payment of costs.