Gregory v Anderson - [2005] QDC 377

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gregory v Anderson [2005] QDC 377

PARTIES:

PETER L GREGORY

Plaintiff

WAYNE ANDERSON

Defendant

FILE NO

BD 830/05

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

22 and 23 November 2005

JUDGE:

Judge Brabazon QC

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff

2. Damages should be assessed at $40,000 including $10,000 aggravated damages.

3. Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings:
(a) up to and including 31/8/05, to be assessed on the standard basis
(b) after 31/8/05 to be assessed on an indemnity basis,
in each case, on the scale for judgments under $50,000.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR ORAL AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – Where plaintiff defamed by oral statements at a committee meeting and in an email – where defendant relies upon section 16(1)(g) of the Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) - Whether defendant’s statements were defamatory or mere retaliation.

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – Whether the conduct of the defendant before trial was sufficiently recalcitrant to award aggravated damages.

Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) s 15, s 16(1)(g)

Atholwood v Barrett [2004] QDC 505

Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44

Favell v Mbuzi [2005] QDC 356

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O’Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291

Kilpatrick v Van Staveren [2002] QDC 293

News Media Owenership v Finlay [1970] NZLR 1089

COUNSEL:

Mr M. Taylor for the plaintiff

The respondent in person

SOLICITORS:

Paul Everingham & Co. (plaintiff)

The Issues

Mr Gregory says that he was defamed by Mr Anderson. He seeks damages. Mr Anderson says there was no defamation and that whatever he said was true, or excused by the Defamation Act.

The defamation is said to arise out of Mr Anderson’s comments at a meeting on 1 February 2005, and in an email he sent, dated 3 March 2005.

The Background

There is an association called The Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Servicemen and Women. It has a Queensland branch, incorporated since 1939. There is state management committee. There are local centres. There is a centre at Caboolture.

Mr Gregory and Mr Anderson are both TPI retired servicemen. All of the witnesses in this case, (with the exception, I believe, of Mr Broadhurst) were also TPI servicemen. Most were members of the Caboolture centre. Mr RR Jones lives at Peak Crossing and was the Queensland state president up until June this year. The Queensland association has about 2,500 members.

The Caboolture centre has about 160 members. Mr Gregory was the secretary – treasurer up until the end of 2004. He was also the editor of the newsletter, and retained that position into 2005. Mr Anderson joined the Caboolture centre in 2004.

Mr Gregory became the secretary in early 2002. As part of the handover from the previous committee, he was given the association’s computer. Mr Gregory had an interest in computers. He helped other people…

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 Gregory v Anderson

Details

AGLC: Gregory v Anderson [2005] QDC 377
Case: [2005] QDC 377
Decision Date: 1 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gregory v Anderson, the plaintiff sought damages for defamation caused by statements made by the defendant. The dispute centred around particular oral statements made by the defendant during a committee meeting, as well as defamatory written statements contained in an email. The defendant attempted to rely on section 16(1)(g) of the Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), asserting that the statements were not defamatory but rather constituted mere retaliation. The court was tasked with determining the defamatory nature of these statements and whether the defendant's conduct warranted the awarding of aggravated damages.

The primary legal issues before the court involved assessing whether the statements made by the defendant were indeed defamatory and if the defendant's conduct before trial was sufficiently recalcitrant to justify the award of aggravated damages. The court examined the content of the statements and their potential to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's behaviour leading up to the trial to determine if it was so egregious as to merit additional compensation in the form of aggravated damages.

The court found that the statements made by the defendant were defamatory, as they carried imputations that were likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation. The court rejected the defendant's reliance on section 16(1)(g), concluding that the statements went beyond mere retaliation and were indeed defamatory. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's conduct before trial was sufficiently recalcitrant to warrant the awarding of aggravated damages. These findings led the court to order judgment in favour of the plaintiff and to set the damages at $40,000, including $10,000 for aggravated damages. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, with specific assessment guidelines provided for the costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff

2. Damages should be assessed at $40,000 including $10,000 aggravated damages.

3. Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings:

(a) up to and including 31/8/05, to be assessed on the standard basis

(b) after 31/8/05 to be assessed on an indemnity basis,

in each case, on the scale for judgments under $50,000.

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:	Gregory v Anderson [2005] QDC 377
PARTIES:	PETER L GREGORY Plaintiff WAYNE ANDERSON Defendant
FILE NO	BD 830/05
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	1 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	22 and 23 November 2005
JUDGE:	Judge Brabazon QC
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the Plaintiff 2. Damages should be assessed at $40,000 including $10,000 aggravated damages. 3. Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings: (a) up to and including 31/8/05, to be assessed on the standard basis (b) after 31/8/05 to be assessed on an indemnity basis, in each case, on the scale for judgments under $50,000.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR ORAL AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – Where plaintiff defamed by oral statements at a committee meeting and in an email – where defendant relies upon section 16(1)(g) of the Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) - Whether defendant’s statements were defamatory or mere retaliation. DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – Whether the conduct of the defendant before trial was sufficiently recalcitrant to award aggravated damages. Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) s 15, s 16(1)(g) Atholwood v Barrett [2004] QDC 505 Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44 Favell v Mbuzi [2005] QDC 356 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O’Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291 Kilpatrick v Van Staveren [2002] QDC 293 News Media Owenership v Finlay [1970] NZLR 1089
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Taylor for the plaintiff The respondent in person
SOLICITORS:	Paul Everingham & Co. (plaintiff)