DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Gregory v Johnson [2017] QDC 224
PARTIES:
BRUCE ALEXANDER GREGORY
(plaintiff)
v
SAMANTHA JOHNSON
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
1422 of 2016
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Defamation claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:
21 July 2017, delivered ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 July 2017
JUDGE:
Muir DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $170,901.92; comprising:
a. $120,000 for compensatory damages
b. $40,000 for aggravated damages; and
c. $10,901.92 for interest
2. The defendant be restrained, whether by herself, her servants or agents, from publishing matter of, and concerning, the plaintiff alleging that:
a. he is a paedophile,
b. he has been charged with sexual offences against children
c. he films women in the shower;
or words to similar effect3. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – where plaintiff seeks aggravated damages for three defamatory publications by the defendant asserting that the plaintiff is a paedophile – where plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent the defendant from continuing to publish defamatory statements – where the plaintiff submits the presence of the ‘grapevine’ effect - where the plaintiff and defendant have been in a past relationship – whether there is evidence of continued publication of defamatory statements by the defendant – whether an injunction should be granted – whether damages should be awarded – whether costs should be calculated on the indemnity basis.
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 227A(1)
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), ss 14(2), 34 - 36, 38(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 288Atholwood v Barrett [2004] QDC 505, considered
Bertwhistle v Conquest [2015] QDC 211, considered
Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited [1993] 178 CLR 44, followed
Cassell and Co Limited v Broome [1972] AC 1027, considered
Cerutti and Another v Crestside Proprietary Limited and Another [2016] 1 Qd R 89, followed
Channel 7 Sydney Proprietary Limited v Mahommed [2010] 278 ALR 232, considered
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Propriety Limited [2005] 79 ALJR 1716, considered
Giani v Queensland Television Limited and Others [2015] QDC 286, followed
Grattan v Porter [2016] QDC 202, cited
Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115, considered
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485, considered
Nowak v Putland [2011] QDC 259, considered
Queensland Newspapers Propriety Limited v Palmer [2012] 2 Qd R 139, followed
Roberts v Prendergast [2014] 1 Qd R 357, followed
Stevens v Boyle [2012] SASC 232, considered
Woolcott v Seeger [2010] WASC 19, citedCOUNSEL:
A Fitzpatrick for the plaintiff
SOLICITORS:
Aitken Whyte Lawyers for the plaintiff
The defendant appeared unrepresented
Introduction
This is a defamation case in which the plaintiff Bruce Alexander Gregory, has sued his former wife, Samantha Johnson, over three publications of defamatory allegations substantively that he is a paedophile, has been charged with sexual offences against children and that he films women in the shower. The plaintiff commenced…
Continue reading Gregory v Johnson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gregory v Johnson [2017] QDC 224
- Case
- [2017] QDC 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the defamatory statements, which included serious allegations of paedophilic behavior, and evaluated the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the presence of the 'grapevine' effect, where defamatory statements are repeatedly circulated, causing ongoing harm. The court had to assess whether the plaintiff had substantiated his claims adequately to warrant the grant of an injunction and the award of damages. Additionally, the court deliberated on the appropriate quantum of damages, taking into account both compensatory and aggravated damages, and the basis for calculating costs.
In its decision, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him damages totaling $170,901.92, comprising $120,000 for compensatory damages, $40,000 for aggravated damages, and $10,901.92 for interest. The court also granted an injunction, restraining the defendant from publishing further defamatory statements regarding the plaintiff. The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis. The ruling was based on the evidence presented, which supported the plaintiff's claims of ongoing defamation and the necessity of both damages and an injunction to protect his reputation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $170,901.92; comprising:
a. $120,000 for compensatory damages
b. $40,000 for aggravated damages; and
c. $10,901.92 for interest
2. The defendant be restrained, whether by herself, her servants or agents, from publishing matter of, and concerning, the plaintiff alleging that:
a. he is a paedophile,
b. he has been charged with sexual offences against children
c. he films women in the shower;
or words to similar effect
3. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis
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.