Kilpatrick v Van Staveren - [2003] QCA 303

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Kilpatrick v Van Staveren & Anor [2003] QCA 303
PARTIES: ANDREW KILPATRICK
(plaintiff/respondent)

v 10
DUDLEY VAN STAVEREN
(first defendant/first appellant)
CHUBB SECURITY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 003 605 098
(second defendant/second appellant)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11103 of 2002
DC No 32 of 2000
DIVISION:

Court of Appeal 20
PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED EX 18 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE:

18 July 2003 30
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO
DEFAMATION - PARTICULAR STATEMENTS -
IMPUTATION - CRIMINAL - where plaintiff engaged to

carry out engineering work at a mining company - where 40
shipping container on site was used as an office and tool shed
- where, at completion of work, shipping container inspected
to ensure it did not contain property of the mining company -
where plaintiff was present when inspection occurred - where
property of mining company found in container - where
plaintiff signed form of acknowledgment that property had
been found - where defendant sent letter to plaintiff's

employer stating that plaintiff was found in possession of 50
property of mining company - whether letter was defamatory
of the plaintiff
DEFAMATION - JUSTIFICATION - TRUTH - where defendants raised defence of publication being truthful and in the public benefit - where trial judge held that letter did not contain the truth - where facts in the letter were not checked - whether defence should succeed
1 60

DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION - GENERALLY - REPUBLICATION - where letter was topic of general discussion in workplace - where plaintiff heard remarks from other workers which indicated their knowledge of letter - whether open to the trial judge to conclude that republication was natural and probable consequence of publication
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES - GENERAL DAMAGES -

where trial judge awarded $50,000 in damages - where 10

plaintiff suffered emotional and physical symptoms following defamation - where defendant gave evidence that he did not believe the plaintiff was a thief - whether amount of damages awarded was manifestly excessive
Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 16(1)(c), s 16(1)(e)

COUNSEL:

A P J Collins for the appellants M E Eliadis for the respondent

SOLICITORS: McCabe Terrill for the appellants
Anderson Telford Lawyers (Mount Isa) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: These are appeals by Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd, which I will call Chubb, and Dudley Van Staveren, whom I will call Van Staveren, against judgments against each of them

for $50,000 damages for defamation. The plaintiff/respondent	30
is Andrew Kilpatrick a leading hand carpenter employed by J & E Schmider Pty Ltd which traded as Schmider Engineering Group ("SEG"). The appeal is against both the conclusion of the
learned trial judge that the defendants were liable in
defamation to the plaintiff 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 Kilpatrick v Van Staveren

Details

AGLC: Kilpatrick v Van Staveren [2003] QCA 303
Case: [2003] QCA 303
Decision Date: 18/07/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kilpatrick v Van Staveren was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved the plaintiff, Mr. Kilpatrick, who alleged that statements made by the defendant, Mr. Van Staveren, were defamatory. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the statements published by the defendant had defamed the plaintiff and, if so, the extent of any damages owed by the defendant.

The legal issues before the court included determining the meaning and effect of the published statements, assessing whether they were defamatory, and if they were, identifying the appropriate remedies for the plaintiff. The court was required to interpret the relevant common law principles of defamation and consider any defences available to the defendant, such as truth or fair comment.

The court found that the statements made by the defendant were indeed defamatory as they tended to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of ordinary members of the community. The court analysed the content and context of the statements, concluding that they carried a defamatory meaning. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendant's defence of truth, finding that the statements were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court also rejected the defence of fair comment, as the statements were not based on a matter of public interest and lacked the necessary factual basis.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the defendant's appeal and to award costs to the plaintiff. The court held that the defamatory statements had a significant impact on the plaintiff's reputation and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the harm caused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.

where trial judge awarded $50,000 in damages - where	10
plaintiff suffered emotional and physical symptoms following defamation - where defendant gave evidence that he did not believe the plaintiff was a thief - whether amount of damages awarded was manifestly excessive
Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 16(1)(c), s 16(1)(e)