DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Grattan v Porter [2016] QDC 202
PARTIES:
ROBERT GRATTAN
(plaintiff)
v
DIANE PORTER
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BD 3818/2014
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:
11 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:
22-23rd June, submissions received 24th June; supplementary submissions received up to 2nd August.
JUDGE:
Robertson DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff for $160,903.42 including interest up to the date of judgment
The defendant is permanently restrained by herself and/or her servants or agents from publishing or causing to be published any of the imputations proved or similar imputations, of and concerning the plaintiff
I order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs including reserved costs, of and incidental to the claim on the indemnity basis, but excluding the costs reserved in relation to the application filed 26 August 2015 where there should be no order as to costs
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION: where defendant telephoned school and had conversations with 2 employees; where defendant admits that she made the calls and that she intended to refer to the plaintiff; whether the words spoken by her carried any of the defamatory imputations pleaded; if so, has the defendant proved that the publication is protected by the pleaded defences both statutory and common law; where the plaintiff and his wife had a very close friendship with the defendant and her husband and their 5-8 year old daughter over a 3 year period; where the friendship came to an end and the plaintiff and his wife started to hear rumours that he was a paedophile; whether in publishing material to the school employees the defendant was motivated by actual malice.
DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION : where amount of damages must bear and appropriate and rational relationship with the harm sustained as a result of the publication; where defendant published earlier material that was damaging to plaintiff’s reputation; where false imputation that a person is a paedophile is one of the worst things that can be said of a person; where plaintiff has suffered actual harm; where defendant was motivated by malice and aggravated damages are claimed
Legislation Considered
Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) ss13H, 13H(2), 194, 197A, 197A(2)
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978, s 8(1)
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) ss25, 30, 30(3)(f), 34, 35, 36,
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 166, 227(2), 360, 444, 445
Cases
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Atholwood v Barrett [2004] QDC 505
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366
Bertwistle v Conquest [2015] QDC 133
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 333
Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 033; [2016] 1 Qd R 89
Jon Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131
Continue reading Grattan v Porter
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Grattan v Porter [2016] QDC 202
- Case
- [2016] QDC 202
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant's phone calls to the school employees constituted a publication of defamatory material about the plaintiff. The court also had to determine whether the defendant had established any of the defences available to her, including the defence of truth and the statutory defence of honest opinion. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendant's motivation in making the phone calls was actual malice, which would entitle the plaintiff to aggravated damages.
In its judgment, the court found that the defendant's phone calls to the school employees did indeed constitute a publication of defamatory material about the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's defence of truth, finding that the statements made were false. The court also found that the statutory defence of honest opinion was not available to the defendant, as she had not genuinely held the opinion that the plaintiff was a paedophile. Furthermore, the court accepted that the defendant's motivation in making the phone calls was actual malice, which entitled the plaintiff to aggravated damages. The court awarded the plaintiff $160,903.42 in damages, including interest up to the date of judgment. The court also granted an injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or causing to be published any similar imputations about the plaintiff. Finally, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis, excluding certain reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff for $160,903.42 including interest up to the date of judgment
The defendant is permanently restrained by herself and/or her servants or agents from publishing or causing to be published any of the imputations proved or similar imputations, of and concerning the plaintiff
I order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs including reserved costs, of and incidental to the claim on the indemnity basis, but excluding the costs reserved in relation to the application filed 26 August 2015 where there should be no order as to costs
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.