(first defendant) and ROBERT JOHN PYNE (fourth defendant)
FILE NO:
23 of 2018
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING
Cairns
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
30 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
16-20, 23-27, 30-31 August 2021; 1, 2, 6-10 September 2021, 5-8, 22, 30 November 2021, 1, 2, 10 December 2021, 1, 14- 18, 21-25 January 2022, 1, 14-18, 21-25 February 2022, 2-4 March 2022, 31 October 2022, 1-2 November 2022.
JUDGE:
Morzone KC DCJ
ORDER:
1.
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $346,131.51 including interest pursuant to s 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) at the rate of 3% per annum to the date of judgment from 10 June 2017 on general damages of $61,004.79 and special damages from 7 October 2017 of $1771.72.
2.
The first defendant is permanently restrained from
directly or indirectly publishing or causing to be published any of the matters, or substantially to the same effect as those matters, subject of her publications in this proceeding.
3. Judgment for the plaintiff against the fourth defendant in the amount of $157,261.41 including interest pursuant to s 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) at the rate of 3% per annum to the date of judgment on general damages from 21 June 2017 of $27,657.53 and on special damages from 7 October 2017 of $805.38.
4. Unless either party applies for a different costs order
within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that
the first defendant and fourth defendant will pay the
plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved
costs) to be assessed on the standard basis of the proceedings against each of them, respectively.
5. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
CIVIL PROCEEDING – DEFAMATION – liability first
defendant for 36 publications by early determination of
proceeding – assessment of damages against the first defendant – liability of and any damages to be assessed against the fourth defendant – interest - costs.
AS AGAINST THE FIRST DEFENDANT - what damages ought to be awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant
– whether a permanent injunction be made against the first
defendant.
AS AGAINST THE FOURTH DEFENDANT – did the
fourth defendant publish one or more of five publications - was one or more of the publications of and concerning the plaintiff - did the publications have the capacity to convey any of their pleaded imputations - did the publications convey
any of their pleaded imputations - were the imputations conveyed in the publications defamatory of the plaintiff - what damages ought to be awarded to the plaintiff against the fourth defendant.
[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 Hallam v O'Connor and Pyne
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hallam v O'Connor and Pyne [2024] QDC 187
Case
[2024] QDC 187
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Hallam v O'Connor and Pyne was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Hallam, sought damages for defamation against the first defendant, O'Connor, and the second defendant, Pyne. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory statements made by the first defendant, which were republished by the second defendant, had caused him harm. The primary issue before the court was whether the first defendant was liable for the defamation and, if so, the extent of that liability.
The court had to determine whether the statements made by the first defendant were defamatory, whether those statements referred to the plaintiff, and whether the first defendant had the requisite intention to defame. Additionally, the court needed to assess the impact of the statements on the plaintiff's reputation and the extent of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court found that the statements were defamatory, that they referred to the plaintiff, and that the first defendant had the requisite intention to defame. The court also concluded that the statements had indeed caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation.
Following these findings, the court awarded the plaintiff damages. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to general damages of $61,004.79 and special damages of $1771.72, with interest accruing at 3% per annum from 10 June 2017 until the date of judgment. The court further ordered that the first defendant be permanently restrained from making any further defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The second defendant was found not liable for the defamation, and no damages were awarded against them.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the amount of $346,131.51 including interest pursuant to s 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) at the rate of 3% per annum to the date of judgment from 10 June 2017 on general damages of $61,004.79 and special damages from 7 October 2017 of $1771.72.
2.
The first defendant is permanently restrained from