Huynh v Chu - [2025] QDC 165

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Huynh v Chu [2025] QDC 165

PARTIES:

BAO NINH HUYNH

(plaintiff)

v

TRANG HIEN THI CHU

(defendant)

FILE NO/S

2538 of 2023

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2025

JUDGE:

Chief Judge Devereaux SC

ORDERS:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff, in the sum of $40,000.00 with interest.

2.   The defendant must take all reasonable steps within her power to cause the removal of the “second publication”, “third publication” and “fourth publication” from Facebook, within 7 days.

3.   I will receive submissions in writing as to the calculation of interest and the matters in paragraph [57] within 5 business days.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – TRIAL – EVIDENCE – PLAINTIFF’S REPUTATION AND CREDIT – Where the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant published defamatory material about the Plaintiff on Facebook – Where the Defendant did not appear at trial – Whether the publication was likely to cause serious harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation – Whether damages should be awarded on the basis of vindication.

LEGISLATION:

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 10A s 34

CASES:

Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] 273 CLR 346

Forrest v Chandla Pty Ltd [2012] NTSC 14

Kestrel Coal Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2001] 1 Qd R 634

Manefield v Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW Inc [2010] NSWSC 1420

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Weatherup [2017] QCA 70

Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388

Petrov v Do [2012] NSWSC 1382

Radar v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198

Shandil v Sharma [2011] NSWDC 273

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612

COUNSEL:

A Nelson for the plaintiff. No appearance for the defendant.

SOLICITORS:

AIP Lawfirm for the plaintiff. No appearance for the defendant.

The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for defamation arising out of the publication of four posts that were uploaded to public Facebook pages by the defendant between 26 July 2022 and 21 September 2022.
The Claim was filed on 4 September 2023. The Defence, filed and served on 3 October 2023, contained only non-admissions. No common law or statutory defences were pleaded.
An Amended Statement of Claim was filed and served on 29 January 2024.
The defendant has not engaged further in the litigation since that time. Her lawyers were given leave to withdraw on 21 June 2024.
Although the plaintiff applied for a declaration that certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim were deemed admitted, the trial proceeded on the evidence before the court, produced by affidavit and given orally. In particular, the essential facts – that the defendant published the material and that it contained defamatory statements which concerned the plaintiff – were sufficiently made out on the evidence.
The defamatory statements were posted in Vietnamese. Translated versions were attached to the Amended Statement of Claim and…

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 Huynh v Chu

Details

AGLC: Huynh v Chu [2025] QDC 165
Case: [2025] QDC 165
Decision Date: 12 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huynh v Chu involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr Huynh, against the defendant, Ms Chu, arising from alleged defamatory statements made on Facebook. The plaintiff sought damages for the serious harm caused to his reputation by Ms Chu’s posts. Ms Chu did not appear at trial, leaving the court to decide the case based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

The legal issues before the court included whether the posts published by Ms Chu were indeed defamatory, the extent of the harm caused to the plaintiff’s reputation, and the appropriate quantum of damages to award. The court had to consider the nature of the publications and their potential impact on the plaintiff’s reputation and credit. It also had to determine if the damages should be awarded on the basis of vindication given the nature of the defamatory material.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the posts published by Ms Chu were defamatory and were likely to cause serious harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. The court noted the absence of Ms Chu and the unchallenged evidence presented by the plaintiff. The court awarded damages of $40,000 to the plaintiff, reflecting the seriousness of the defamatory statements and the harm caused. Additionally, the court ordered Ms Chu to take reasonable steps to remove the specified posts from Facebook within seven days of the judgment. The court also directed that written submissions on the calculation of interest and other matters be submitted within five business days.

The final orders of the court were for judgment in favour of the plaintiff, in the sum of $40,000 with interest, and for Ms Chu to remove the specified posts from Facebook within seven days. The court received submissions in writing regarding the calculation of interest and other matters within five business days of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff, in the sum of $40,000.00 with interest.

2. The defendant must take all reasonable steps within her power to cause the removal of the “second publication”, “third publication” and “fourth publication” from Facebook, within 7 days.

3. I will receive submissions in writing as to the calculation of interest and the matters in paragraph [57] within 5 business days.

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.