Hallam v O'Connor (No. 2) - [2020] QDC 343

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hallam v O’Connor & Anor (No. 2) [2020] QDC 343

PARTIES:

GREGORY JOHN CHARLES HALLAM

(Plaintiff)

V

LYN ELIZABETH O’CONNOR & ANOR

(Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

23 of 2018

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2020 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Judgment conditional upon an assessment of damages in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action pleaded in paragraphs 210 to 268 of the further amended statement of claim.

2.   The assessment of damage in respect of those matters be conducted by a Judge of this Court hearing and determining the balance of the proceedings.

3.   Liberty to apply for any minor variations to that Order.

4.   Application for indemnity costs adjourned to 12 October 2020.

The applicant is the plaintiff in proceedings for defamation against the respondent and another party. Some of the background of the matter is set out in the judgment I have given in Hallam v O’Connor [2019] QDC 130. Subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings, from about the end of June 2018, it is said the first defendant published further defamatory comments on the internet about the applicant. By a further amended statement of claim filed on the 23^rd of March 2020, the applicant seeks damages in respect of 10 such publications identified in that pleading as the 14^th to the 23^rd Lyn O’Connor publications. They are pleaded in renumbered paragraphs 210 to 268 of that further amended statement of claim.

The amended pleading generally alleges in relation to each of the 10 publications:

(1)that from a pleaded date the respondent published a comment or comments on a nominated Facebook page identifying particular words of the publication;
(2)that the publication has continued to the present or a nominated time;
(3)what the immediate Facebook context of the publication was;
(4)that the publication identified, or was understood to refer to, the applicant;
(5)that the ordinary and natural meaning of the publication is defamatory to the applicant.

As I have said, that further amended pleading was filed on the 23^rd of March 2020. It was served shortly thereafter. The defendant has still not filed a defence to those new allegations and the applicant by application filed on the 11^th of August 2020 seeks orders pursuant to rule 374(5) of the UCPR:

(a) that the first defendant show cause why judgment, conditional upon an assessment of damages, should not be entered against her in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action pleaded in paragraphs 210 to 268 of the further amended statement of claim; and

(b) the assessment of damages in (a) above be conducted by a Judge of this Court hearing and determining the balance of the proceedings.

Further orders that are not of direct relevance to today’s matter were also sought in that application.

The matter came before me on the 15^th of May. At that time, on the applicant’s application, I made orders…

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 Hallam v O'Connor (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Hallam v O'Connor (No. 2) [2020] QDC 343
Case: [2020] QDC 343
Decision Date: 18 September 2020 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hallam v O'Connor (No. 2) involved the plaintiff, Hallam, suing the defendant, O'Connor, over claims related to breaches of duty and fiduciary obligations. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for various causes of action, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breaches of statutory provisions. The defendant contested these claims, arguing that the plaintiff's allegations were unfounded and that any damages claimed were excessive.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the defendant had breached fiduciary duties, whether the defendant had acted negligently, and whether the statutory provisions alleged had been contravened. The court had to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether that duty was breached, and if so, whether the breach caused the plaintiff's loss. The court also had to consider the quantum of damages if liability was established.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant did indeed breach fiduciary duties and statutory provisions, and that these breaches had caused the plaintiff's loss. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages, but the exact amount was to be assessed at a later date. The court ruled that the assessment of damages should be conducted by a judge of the court who would hear and determine the balance of the proceedings. The court also made orders for costs and adjourned the application for indemnity costs to a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment conditional upon an assessment of damages in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action pleaded in paragraphs 210 to 268 of the further amended statement of claim.

2. The assessment of damage in respect of those matters be conducted by a Judge of this Court hearing and determining the balance of the proceedings.

3. Liberty to apply for any minor variations to that Order.

4. Application for indemnity costs adjourned to 12 October 2020.

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:	Hallam v O’Connor & Anor (No. 2) [2020] QDC 343
PARTIES:	GREGORY JOHN CHARLES HALLAM (Plaintiff) V LYN ELIZABETH O’CONNOR & ANOR (Defendants)
FILE NO/S:	23 of 2018
DIVISION:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	18 September 2020 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment conditional upon an assessment of damages in respect of liability for the plaintiff’s causes of action pleaded in paragraphs 210 to 268 of the further amended statement of claim. 2. The assessment of damage in respect of those matters be conducted by a Judge of this Court hearing and determining the balance of the proceedings. 3. Liberty to apply for any minor variations to that Order. 4. Application for indemnity costs adjourned to 12 October 2020.