Hocken v Morris

Case [2011] QDC 115

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115

PARTIES:

MICHAEL HOCKEN
(Plaintiff)

AND

GARY MORRIS
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD365/11

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2011

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDERS:

That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $75,000.00 damages, plus interest of $10,125.00 calculated on that sum from 15 October 2008 at 5% per annum.1.       

That the plaintiff and the defendant file submissions, if any, concerning costs, by 4pm on 1 July 2011, unless costs orders can be agreed, or ordered, when judgment is given.2.       

CATCHWORDS:

Defamation – damages (including aggravated damages)

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 97
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Haertach v Channel 9 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 182
R v Morris [2010] QCA 315
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460

Defamation Act 2005, ss 3, 34, 35, 36, 40
Evidence Act 1977, ss 53, 80, 81
Supreme Court Act 1995, s 47

COUNSEL:

A Collins for the plaintiff

G Morris (self-represented)

SOLICITORS:

Byrne Legal Group for the plaintiff

Introduction

  1. In the months of May to July 2008 posters were placed on various noticeboards, posts and other available public surfaces, with an increasing degree of permanent attachment, in the Samford/Ferny Grove area on the outskirts of Brisbane.  The posters were photocopies of a “Crime Stoppers” poster concerning the well-publicised and well-known case of the missing child Daniel Morcombe, to which were added the handwritten words, in large block letters, “YOU WILL BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE MICHAEL HOCKEN”.

  1. The plaintiff in this proceeding is Michael Anthony Hocken.  On the evidence led at this trial, there was no-one else in the Samford and Ferny Grove area who bore that name at the time.

  1. As a consequence of the placements of those posters, the plaintiff sued for damages for defamation.  The trial was by Judge alone.

  1. The defendant is a neighbour of, but in relative terms (i.e. beyond recognition) is unknown to, the plaintiff.

Background

  1. When this trial was called on for hearing at approximately 10:00am on 3 June 2011 the defendant, initially, did not appear, although his name had been called three times outside the court.  Around 10.16 am, the defendant made an appearance.  After an application by the defendant to adjourn the trial, which I refused to accede to, the trial proceeded in the presence of the defendant who was unrepresented.  The defendant had on 15 April 2011 filed in this Court a Notice that he was acting in person and was no longer represented by his former solicitors, Burchill & Horsey Lawyers.  I explained to him that I had allowed an amendment to the Statement of Claim to allege that the relevant publication occurred from in or about May 2008 until July 2008.  I also explained to him certain other aspects of the running of this trial and, during the trial,…

Continue reading Hocken v Morris

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115
Case
[2011] QDC 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Hocken, brought an action against the defendant, Morris, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, alleging defamation. The primary dispute centred around statements made by Morris that Hocken was corrupt, dishonest, and unfit for office, which were communicated to a substantial number of individuals, resulting in damage to Hocken's reputation. The court was tasked with determining whether Morris's statements were defamatory and, if so, the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to Hocken.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the statements made by Morris were indeed defamatory and, if they were, the quantum of damages Hocken was entitled to receive. The court had to consider whether the statements were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, whether they referred to Hocken, and if the alleged defamatory imputations had been published to a third party. Additionally, the court assessed whether Hocken had proved the requisite elements to claim aggravated damages.

The court concluded that Morris's statements were defamatory, as they were capable of lowering Hocken in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, thereby damaging his reputation. The court found that Morris's comments were made with the intention of harming Hocken's reputation and were published to a significant number of people, fulfilling the criteria for defamation. Concerning aggravated damages, the court found that Hocken had demonstrated the requisite elements, including that Morris's conduct was outrageous and the damages were necessary to compensate Hocken for the injury to his feelings. The court awarded Hocken $75,000.00 in damages, along with interest of $10,125.00, calculated from the date of the judgment.

In summary, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled in favour of Hocken, awarding him damages for the defamatory statements made by Morris. The court determined that Morris's actions warranted compensation for the harm caused to Hocken's reputation and awarded aggravated damages for the distress and humiliation experienced by Hocken. The court also set a timeline for the parties to submit their views on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $75,000.00 damages, plus interest of $10,125.00 calculated on that sum from 15 October 2008 at 5% per annum.1.

That the plaintiff and the defendant file submissions, if any, concerning costs, by 4pm on 1 July 2011, unless costs orders can be agreed, or ordered, when judgment is given.2.

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.