Newman v Speigler

[2008] QDC 266

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Newman v Speigler & Anor  [2008] QDC 266

PARTIES:

BRIAN ANTHONY JOHN NEWMAN

(Plaintiff)

v

HARRY SPEIGLER

(First Defendant)

CHRIS BRENNOCKS

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2123 of 2005

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial   

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court 

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane District Court

HEARING DATE:

10, 11, 12 November 2008; Written submissions 13 November 2008

JUDGE:

M W Forde DCJ

ORDER:

(1)        Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $7,500.00;

(2)        Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $3,200.00;

(3)        It is ordered that the defendants do pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed on an indemnity basis; and

(4)        It is further ordered that the costs be apportioned as to seven tenths payable by the first defendant and three tenths as against the second defendant.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION - Jury trial - Entitlement to interest on compensatory damages - Whether costs on an indemnity bases appropriate - Two defendants - Apportionment of costs

Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) s 23

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 360, 363, 697, 703

Banks and Anor v Copas Newnham Pty Limited and Ors [2002] QCA 217, distinguished

Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd (2003) 1 Qd R 1, referred to

Borg and Ors. v Northern Rivers Finance Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 163, referred to

Calderbank v Calderbank [1973] 3 WLR 586, applied

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131, applied

Messiter v Hutchinson (1987) 10 NSWLR 525, applied

Re: Australian Transport Insurance Pty Ltd and Ors (1986) 71 ALR 287, referred to

Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (1994) 1 QD R 156, referred to

Timms v Clift (1998) 2 Qd R 100, applied

COUNSEL:

P Favell for the Plaintiffs

R Perry SC for the Defendants   

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston for the Defendants   

Introduction

1. The plaintiff was successful in a defamation action against both defendants.  The jury found that statements made by the defendants, who were prison officers, suggested that the plaintiff was engaged in corrupt activity or was stealing money from the Queensland Prison Officers Association (QPOA).  The jury awarded damages as follows:

Compensatory	Aggravated Compensatory	Exemplary
First defendant	$5,000.00	$1,000.00	$1,000.00
Second defendant	$2,000.00	$500.00	$500.00

Judgment was given accordingly against each defendant.  Two issues remain for            determination. Whether an award for interest should be made, and the nature of the           costs order, given an offer to settle by the plaintiff.[1]  The defendants contended in           oral argument that there should be no award of interest, but have asked for a     limited award in written submissions.[2]

[1]Exhibit AA

[2]Exhibit BB

Basis for ordering interest

1. An award for interest can be made for compensatory damages which include aggravated compensatory damages.[3]  The appropriate rate was also discussed.[4]  The rate of 4% spread over the whole period from the date of the publication until…