Hallam v Ross (No 3) - [2012] QSC 421

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hallam v Ross (No 3) [2012] QSC 421
PARTIES: CRAIG HALLAM
(plaintiff)
v
DONALD ROSS
(defendant)
FILE NO: BS643/10
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Trial
DELIVERED ON: 21 December 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING Written submissions on 17, 18 December 2012
DATES:
JUDGE: Margaret Wilson J
ORDERS:

1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $18,750.00
together with interest in the sum of $1,968.75;
2) that the defendant, whether by himself or his servants
or agents, be restrained from publishing, or causing to be published, matter of and concerning the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff is a criminal, has colluded in a criminal way with two other arborists, has falsified a Government certificate and is an arborist whose work
is an example of world’s worst practice, or allegations
having similar effect; and
3) that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and

incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs,
to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – COSTS – GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF ACTION – where plaintiff brought a successful action for defamation – where allowance was
made for the mitigating effect of two of the defamatory
imputations being substantially true – whether the interests of
justice require that costs be awarded on the standard or
indemnity basis
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 40
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc (1986)
ATPR 48-135, cited.
COUNSEL: RJ Anderson for the plaintiff
DP O‘Gorman SC for the defendant
SOLICITORS: Bennett & Philp as town agents for Winter Hilditch &
Fotheringham for the plaintiff
McMillan Legal for the defendant

MARGARET WILSON J: The parties have made written submissions on the form of the orders and on costs.
They agree that orders should be made in the following terms –
“1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $18,750.00 together with interest in the
sum of $1,968.75;
2. The defendant, whether by himself or his servants or agents, be restrained from
publishing, or causing to be published, matter of and concerning the plaintiff
alleging that the plaintiff is a criminal, has colluded in a criminal way with two
other arborists, has falsified a Government certificate and is an arborist whose
work is an example of world’s worst practice, or allegations having similar effect.”
The outstanding issue is costs.
The plaintiff‘s claim was based on the publication of two emails containing
defamatory statements. His claim was successful, but in the assessment of damages allowance was made for the mitigating effect of two of the imputations in the second email being substantially true.
Counsel for the plaintiff asked for an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff‘s
costs, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff should recover only 60% of his costs, and that they should be assessed on the standard basis.
Section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) provides –

“40 Costs in defamation proceedings
(1) In…

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 Ross (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Hallam v Ross (No 3) [2012] QSC 421
Case: [2012] QSC 421
Decision Date: 21 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hallam v Ross (No 3), the plaintiff, Hallam, brought a successful action against the defendant, Ross, for defamation. The dispute arose from a series of defamatory statements made by Ross regarding Hallam. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court, which has jurisdiction over defamation claims. The primary focus of the case was the determination of damages and the appropriate allocation of costs.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, including the quantification of damages for the defamation, and the appropriate basis for awarding costs given the mitigating effect of two of the defamatory imputations being substantially true. The court had to balance the principle that costs generally follow the event with the interests of justice, particularly in light of the partial truth of some of the defamatory statements.

The court found in favour of Hallam, awarding damages of $18,750.00. In considering the costs, the court acknowledged that two of the defamatory imputations were substantially true, which had a mitigating effect on the overall harm caused. However, the court determined that the interests of justice required the costs to be awarded on the standard basis rather than the indemnity basis. This decision reflects a nuanced approach, recognising the partial truth of some imputations while also considering the broader context of the litigation.

The court's final order was that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $18,750.00, with costs to be awarded on the standard basis. This outcome underscores the importance of a balanced and equitable assessment of both damages and costs in defamation cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $18,750.00

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.

CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – COSTS – GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF ACTION – where plaintiff brought a successful action for defamation – where allowance was
made for the mitigating effect of two of the defamatory
imputations being substantially true – whether the interests of
justice require that costs be awarded on the standard or indemnity basis
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 40 Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc (1986) ATPR 48-135, cited.
COUNSEL:	RJ Anderson for the plaintiff
DP O‘Gorman SC for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Bennett & Philp as town agents for Winter Hilditch & Fotheringham for the plaintiff McMillan Legal for the defendant