Gregory v Johnson

Case [2017] QDC 224


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 effect

3.   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 288

Atholwood 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, cited

COUNSEL:

A Fitzpatrick for the plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

Aitken Whyte Lawyers for the plaintiff

The defendant appeared unrepresented

Introduction

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Gregory v Johnson [2017] QDC 224
Case
[2017] QDC 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gregory v Johnson involves a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr Gregory, against the defendant, Ms Johnson, for the alleged defamatory publications made by Ms Johnson. Mr Gregory seeks compensatory and aggravated damages for the defamatory statements, as well as an injunction to prevent further publication. The relationship between the parties is noted, having been in a past relationship, which adds context to the allegations and the impact on the plaintiff. The High Court was tasked with determining whether there was sufficient evidence of continued publication of defamatory statements, whether an injunction should be granted, and if damages and costs should be awarded.

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.