DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hockings v Lynch & Adams [2022] QDC 127
PARTIES:
PENNY HOCKINGS
(Plaintiff)
v
MICHELLE LYNCH
(First Defendant)
And
ALISON ADAMS
(Second Defendant)
FILE NO:
D284/19
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
6 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 May 2021
JUDGE:
Dann DCJ
ORDER:
1. The first defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $140,000 plus interest in the amount of $12,250
2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $50,000 plus interest in the amount of $4,375
3. The first defendant and the second defendant jointly pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $25,000 plus interest in the amount of $2,187.50
4. The defendants are permanently restrained, whether by themselves, their agents or otherwise, from continuing to publish, publishing, causing to be published, encouraging, requesting or enabling to be published (including by responding to questions or requests for comments from others) by any means whatsoever any comments or images about the plaintiff to the same or substantially the same effect as the First, Fourth to Twenty First and Twenty-Third to Twenty-Fourth occasions
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATIONS – where the plaintiff alleged twenty four separate imputations were defamatory – where the alleged imputations were Facebook comments and one on Twitter – whether each of the imputations is defamatory
DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – GENERALLY – INTERNET PUBLICATIONS – SOCIAL MEDIA – where the plaintiff’s claim related to publication of comments made on Facebook and Twitter – where some of the Facebook pages were private and others were in the public domain - where features of social media must be considered – where defendants admit publication in locations where defamatory imputations arose - where features of social media are part of the context in which imputations are read – whether there has been publication
DEFAMATION – PUBLICATION – EXTENT OF PUBLICATION – GRAPEVINE EFFECT - where the plaintiff broadly claimed each publication had been made to hundreds of people – where evidence that some of the original posts were liked, commented or shared – where it was not possible to determine how many of those persons had in fact seen the comments the subject of the proceeding – whether the grapevine effect arises out of facts
DEFAMATION – JUSTIFICATION – GENERALLY – WHETHER PLEA ESTABLISHED – where defendants contended partial plea of justification to imputations – where the plea was based on three grounds – whether the plea is established
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – where plaintiff accepted there was no specific evidence of harm being done to her personal and business reputation – where plaintiff claimed hurt to feelings – where some evidence members of the community did not think less of her – whether vindication is required
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – SPECIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED – AGGRAVATION…
Continue reading Hockings v Lynch & Adams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hockings v Lynch & Adams [2022] QDC 127
- Case
- [2022] QDC 127
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues centred on whether the specific comments made by the defendants were defamatory, whether the comments were published to a sufficient extent to constitute defamation, and whether the defendants had established a defence of justification. The court also considered whether the defendants' conduct aggravated the defamation and what the appropriate level of damages should be.
The court found that the comments made by the defendants were indeed defamatory as they contained imputations that were false and injurious to the plaintiff's reputation. The court determined that the comments were published to a sufficient extent, despite the varying degrees of privacy on the Facebook pages, to constitute defamation. The court rejected the plea of justification as the defendants failed to establish their defence. The court found that the persistence of the plea of justification, despite it being unsuccessful, was an aggravating feature. The court also considered the conduct of the parties and the absence of an apology until the conclusion of the trial, which it found to be an aggravating factor.
The court ordered that the first defendant pay $140,000 plus interest, the second defendant pay $50,000 plus interest, and the defendants jointly pay $25,000 plus interest. The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any comments about the plaintiff to the same or substantially the same effect as the defamatory comments.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The first defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $140,000 plus interest in the amount of $12,250
2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $50,000 plus interest in the amount of $4,375
3. The first defendant and the second defendant jointly pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $25,000 plus interest in the amount of $2,187.50
4. The defendants are permanently restrained, whether by themselves, their agents or otherwise, from continuing to publish, publishing, causing to be published, encouraging, requesting or enabling to be published (including by responding to questions or requests for comments from others) by any means whatsoever any comments or images about the plaintiff to the same or substantially the same effect as the First, Fourth to Twenty First and Twenty-Third to Twenty-Fourth occasions
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.