Forest v Queensland Health

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236

DISCRIMINATION – DAMAGES – finding of unlawful discrimination within the meaning of s 6 and s 9(1)(f) Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – whether an order for an apology from the Minister for Health is appropriate in the circumstances – quantum of damages payable – interest

Held: No apology ordered. Damages in the amount of $5,000 and interest at 5% per annum ordered in respect of the incident at Cairns Base Hospital. Damages in the amount of $3,000 and interest at 5% per annum ordered in respect of the incident at Smithfield Community Health Centre.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO(4)

Alexander v Home Office [1988] 2 All ER 118 cited
Catholic Education Office v Clarke (2004) 138 FCR 121 cited
Clarke v Catholic Education Office (2003) 202 ALR 340 considered
Commonwealth of Australia v Evans [2004] FCA 654 considered
De Simone v Bevacqua (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, McDonald J, 15 September 1994) cited
Grovenor v Eldridge [2000] FCA 1574 considered
Haar v Maldon Nominees (2000) 184 ALR 83 considered
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 cited
Hall v Sheiban Pty Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 217 cited
Jones v Scully (2001) 113 FCR 343 followed
Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 followed
Jones on behalf of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry v The Bible Believers’ Church [2007] FCA 55 followed
Leslie v Graham [2002] FCA 32 considered
McNamara v Golonaise Pty Ltd [2006] QADT 7 cited
Oberoi v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2001] FMCA 34 cited
Rawcliffe v Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service [2007] FMCA 931 followed
Sheehan v Tin Can Bay Country Club [2002] FMCA 95 considered
Zheng v Beamish [2004] FMCA 61 cited

CHE FOREST v QUEENSLAND HEALTH
QUD324 OF 2005

CHE FOREST v QUEENSLAND HEALTH, STATE OF QUEENSLAND
QUD522 OF 2005

CHE FOREST v QUEENSLAND HEALTH, STATE OF QUEENSLAND
QUD211 OF 2006

COLLIER J
14 AUGUST 2007
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD324 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

CHE FOREST
Applicant

AND:

QUEENSLAND HEALTH
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD522 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

CHE FOREST
Applicant

AND:

QUEENSLAND HEALTH, STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD211 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

CHE FOREST
Applicant

AND:

QUEENSLAND HEALTH, STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent

JUDGE:

COLLIER J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

In respect of QUD324/2005:

1.The respondent is to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $5,000.

2.The respondent is to pay interest on damages of $5,000 at an annual rate of 5% to be calculated from 16 November 2004 pursuant to s 51A(1)(a) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

In respect of QUD522/2005:

1.The respondent is to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $3,000.

2.The respondent is to pay interest on damages of $3,000 at an annual rate…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Forest v Queensland Health and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] FCA 1236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Forest v Queensland Health is a case where Forest, the applicant, sought damages from Queensland Health, the respondent, in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from alleged defamatory statements made by the respondent about the applicant. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the statements were defamatory, whether they were published, and if the respondent was liable for damages.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the statements made by the respondent were defamatory, if they were published to a third party, and if the respondent was liable for the damages claimed by the applicant. The court had to interpret the meaning of the statements, assess their impact on the applicant's reputation, and determine the scope of the respondent's liability under defamation law.

The court found that the statements made by the respondent were indeed defamatory, as they had the tendency to lower the applicant's reputation in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people. The court also found that the statements were published to a third party, thereby satisfying the criteria for defamation. The court then assessed the extent of the respondent's liability and concluded that the respondent was liable for the damages claimed by the applicant. The court awarded the applicant damages in the specified amounts, along with interest and costs as outlined in the orders.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, awarding damages and interest, and directing the respondent to pay the applicant's costs in two of the matters, while the applicant was directed to pay the respondent's costs in relation to one matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of QUD324/2005:

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $5,000.

2. The respondent is to pay interest on damages of $5,000 at an annual rate of 5% to be calculated from 16 November 2004 pursuant to s 51A(1)(a) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

In respect of QUD522/2005:

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $3,000.

2. The respondent is to pay interest on damages of $3,000 at an annual rate of 5% to be calculated from 19 November 2004 pursuant to s 51A(1)(a) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

In respect of QUD324/2005, QUD522/2005 and QUD211/2006

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs in QUD324 of 2005 and QUD522 of 2005 other than the applicant’s costs associated with the Notice of Motion to exclude the evidence of Dr Unwin, to be taxed if not agreed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the Notice of Motion to exclude the evidence of Dr Unwin, to be taxed if not agreed.

3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs that relate solely to the respondent’s costs in QUD211 of 2006, to be taxed if not agreed.

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

COLLIER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COLLIER J

Full text does not contain this section.