Harrington v Shoard

Case [2023] QDC 11

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Harrington v Shoard [2023] QDC 11

PARTIES:

JOSEPH HARRINGTON
(plaintiff)
v
STEPHEN SHOARD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

DC No 1868 of 2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2022; 23 February 2022; 24 February 2022; 11 March 2022; 2 February 2023

JUDGES:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   That the defendant pay to the plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $15,000 plus interest in the sum of $822.33 being a total of $15,822.33.

2.   The defendant is permanently restrained from publishing or causing to be published any statement to the effect that the plaintiff is a paedophile or had sexually abused a 12 year old girl.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – where the plaintiff sued in respect of four alleged defamatory statements, the first being a sign and the other three being oral statements – whether all statements concerned the plaintiff – whether all statements were made by the defendant – whether all statements conveyed the alleged defamatory imputations

DEFAMATION – JUSTIFICATION – GENERALLY – where the defendant seeks to establish the defence of justification in respect of the first and third oral statements – whether the words of each of the alleged defamatory imputations contained in the statements were true and justified pursuant to s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)

DEFAMATION – OTHER DEFENCES – TRIVIALITY – where the defendant seeks to establish the defence of triviality in respect of the sign and the first and second oral statements – whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff was unlikely to suffer harm from the alleged statements

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – SPECIAL MATTERS – AGGRAVATION where the plaintiff seeks general and aggravated damages for defamation under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – whether an award of general and aggravated damages should be made

DEFAMATION – INJUNCTIONS – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – where the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief – whether an order should be made restraining the defendant from publishing any matter to the same effect

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 58
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 4, s 25, s 33, s 34, s 35, s 36, s 37

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1988) 43 NSWLR 158
Atholwood v Barrett [2004] QDC 505 
Bertwistle v Conquest [2015] QDC 133
Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1981) 2 NSWLR 474
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v George Henty & Sons (1882) 7 App Cas 741
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd v Anor [2016] 1 Qd R 89
Costello v Random House Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 149 FLR 367
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
English and Scottish Co-operative Properties Mortgage and Investment Society Ltd…

Continue reading Harrington v Shoard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harrington v Shoard [2023] QDC 11
Case
[2023] QDC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Harrington v Shoard, the plaintiff, Harrington, sought relief for alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant, Shoard. Harrington claimed that Shoard made four defamatory statements, including a sign and three oral statements, which harmed his reputation. The central issues for the court were whether all statements were about Harrington, if they were all made by Shoard, and if they conveyed the defamatory imputations. Additionally, Shoard attempted to justify the first and third oral statements, arguing they were true. Shoard also sought to establish the defence of triviality for the sign and the first and second oral statements, claiming Harrington was unlikely to suffer harm. Harrington sought general and aggravated damages for defamation, as well as injunctive relief to prevent Shoard from publishing similar statements in the future.

The court found that the statements were indeed defamatory, but Shoard did not successfully establish the defence of justification or triviality. Shoard's evidence did not prove that the statements were true or that Harrington was unlikely to suffer harm. As for damages, the court awarded Harrington $15,000 in general damages and $822.33 in interest, totalling $15,822.33. The court also granted an injunction restraining Shoard from making further defamatory statements about Harrington.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including Harrington's testimony and the credibility of Shoard's defences. The court found Harrington's evidence more credible and awarded him the damages and injunctive relief sought. Shoard's attempts to justify and trivialise the statements were unsuccessful, and the court ordered Shoard to pay Harrington the awarded amount and refrain from making further defamatory statements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff damages for defamation in the sum of $15,000 plus interest in the sum of $822.33 being a total of $15,822.33.

2. The defendant is permanently restrained from publishing or causing to be published any statement to the effect that the plaintiff is a paedophile or had sexually abused a 12 year old girl.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Obviously, the making of an apology, if there were one, would be a factor in mitigation. In his evidence, the defendant steadfastly maintained his position.Evidence relating to damages While the law presumes the plaintiff has a previous good reputation and damage to his reputation follows from a defamatory publication, the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence of his good reputation and of the actual harm caused by the defendant’s defamatory publication. In support of his reputation, Mr Harrington called two long-standing friends of his now adult children. Ms Brunelli said that her parents and the Harringtons were best friends and, whilst she had not lived in the area since 2010, she was still best friends with Joe’s daughter. Each gave evidence of him being hard-working, community-minded and dependable. Andrea Wilden said that “he was funny…he loved people and people loved him.” Both confirmed that there was never any suggestion of him being a paedophile. It was clear that neither lived in the local community now and that they did not see the Harringtons very often. Nevertheless, Ms Wildin gave evidence of Joe having come to her a few years ago, of his having cried about how he was feeling and said that these people were wrecking his life. She gave evidence of him having said that certain people were turning up at his work and at different places and saying that he was a paedophile. She then said she saw him not long ago and he was broken. She gave no particulars as to the people and precisely where she was told the statements about him had been made. There was no evidence from Mr Harrington that people turned up to his work and at different places saying that he was a paedophile. The most that he said was that statements had been made in his neighbourhood by Mr Shoard and Mr Carpenter, and the vague evidence concerning a statement made by John Dick. Mr Harrington did not at all give the impression of being a person who would cry or feel that the statements made by Mr Shoard were wrecking his life. I do not find the evidence of Ms Wildin credible in any respect. Mr Harrington gave evidence that he was shocked by the accusation that he was a paedophile, but that was not how he sounded on the video footage taken of the first defamatory statement. It would be more accurate to describe that event as simply one that degenerated into a slanging match between him and Mr Shoard. On his version that seemed to also be how the exchange between him and Mr Carpenter should be viewed as well. In answer to a leading question, Mr Harrington said that he “felt” that people were treating him differently because of the things said by Mr Shoard, and that he was worried about people treating him differently, but he also said nothing had ever been said to him and I am not prepared to accept that evidence on face value. Having had the opportunity to view Mr Harrington in the witness box and re-read objectively the transcript I am not convinced that Mr Harrington was hurt by the statement.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.