DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION - GENERALLY - AS CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFAMATION - OTHER DEFENCES
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES
Action in defamation
Plaintiff and defendant involved in planning dispute. Defendant published two Facebook posts concerning dispute and other subjects. First post attracted numerous comments.
Plaintiff pleads first post and comments carried imputations that plaintiff a selfish greedy man of contemptable character and second carried imputation that plaintiff made or was involved in threats to rape and kill. Defendant pleads first post not published in terms alleged, comments not published by him and relevant paragraph of second post not 'of or concerning' the plaintiff. Also pleads imputations not defamatory. Further pleads posts protected by defences of fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings and extended qualified privilege as identified in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997) 189 CLR 520.
Plaintiff claims damages and aggravated damages.
Held:
1.Defendant's evidence on evidentiary issues in contention rejected.
2.Defendant published first post in terms alleged.
3.Defendant provided medium through which bi-lateral communication of comments occurred. Defendant therefore liable for comments as secondary publisher.
4.Relevant paragraphs of second post would be read by ordinary reasonable reader to be 'of and concerning the plaintiff.'
5.Relevant paragraphs of both posts and comments read as a whole would be taken by ordinary reasonable reader to carry imputations pleaded.
6.All imputations are defamatory in that they tend to hold the plaintiff up to contempt, scorn or ridicule.
7.Neither post a fair report of judicial proceedings. Both were comment not report properly so called.
8.Neither post protected in its entirely by extended qualified privilege. No temporal connection between relevant paragraphs of each post and balance of post. On proper characterization relevant paragraphs not concerning governmental or political matters properly so called and therefore not protected.
9.Award of aggravated damages warranted on basis that opinions expressed not honestly held and hurt exacerbated by unconscionable failure to make redress.
10. Damages assessed at $100,000 including aggravated damages.
[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 Johnston v Aldridge
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Johnston v Aldridge [2018] SADC 68
Case
[2018] SADC 68
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Johnston v Aldridge was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Johnston, brought an action against the defendant, Aldridge, claiming defamation. The statements in question were made by Aldridge to third parties, alleging that Johnston had committed perjury in a previous legal matter, and further asserting that Johnston had committed a crime and was unfit to hold his position. The defendant argued that the statements were true and were made in the public interest, and that the plaintiff had not suffered any harm as a result of the alleged defamatory statements.
The court was required to determine whether the statements made by the defendant were defamatory, whether they had been published, and whether the defendant had any available defences to the claim. The court also needed to consider the appropriate amount of damages, if any, that the plaintiff should receive.
In considering these issues, the court found that the statements were defamatory as they had the potential to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community. The court also found that the statements had been published to third parties, satisfying the requirement for a cause of action in defamation. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the statements were made in the public interest, finding that they were made with malice and without any genuine concern for the public good. The court further found that the plaintiff had suffered harm as a result of the defamatory statements, entitling him to damages. The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in damages, reflecting the seriousness of the defamatory statements and the harm suffered by the plaintiff.