Nicetin v Price - [2003] QCA 332

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Nicetin v Price [2003] QCA 332
PARTIES: DJURDINA NICETON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
WAYNE PRICE
(defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 630 of 2003
DC No 75 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 31 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 31 July 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Helman JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Appeal struck out and extension of time within which to
seek leave to appeal refused, with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – REVIEW OF
ASSESSMENT – where learned primary judge awarded
damages to respondent for defamation – whether damages
manifestly excessive and unsustainable – whether nominal
damages should have been awarded
PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND Court jurisdictional limit – where appellant seeks extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal – whether appellant has right of appeal
District Court of Queensland Act 1967, s 118 (2) (a) (i)
COUNSEL: R J Clutterbuck for the plaintiff/respondent
T Somers for the defendant/appellant
SOLICITORS: Wellners Lawyers for the plaintiff/respondent Deacon & Milani for the defendant/appellant

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant has filed a notice of appeal from a decision of the District Court awarding the respondent damages for defamation in the sum of $40,000, together with interest and costs to be assessed.

There is, however, no right of appeal to this Court from a judgment in this amount which is less than the Magistrates Court jurisdictional limit:

see s 118(2)(a)(i) District Court of Queensland Act 1967. The applicant, in fact, requires an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from that judgment:
see s 118(3) District Court of Queensland Act 1967.

Both parties were strata title lot owners in a large shopping centre at Hope Island on the Gold Coast called Village Square. The respondent had been involved in lengthy litigation, challenging the applicant's right to exclusive occupancy of a part of the shopping centre and as to whether the applicant could charge an entrance fee to the complex. Ultimately the first issue was determined in favour of the applicant and the second against him. The litigation cost the body corporate of Village Square about $36,000. This was the background to the defamation action here.

The learned primary Judge found that the applicant defamed the respondent in a letter to other lot owners of Village Square written, at least in part, with a view to improving the complex. The defamatory portions of the letter stated that the respondent was reckless and egotistical; had a hidden agenda in ensuring that litigation involving the body corporate was promoted; was a person who consistently put her own position before that of any other lot owner; was manipulative and used the body corporate for her own means; mismanaged or was part of the mismanagement of any committee upon which…

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 Nicetin v Price

Details

AGLC: Nicetin v Price [2003] QCA 332
Case: [2003] QCA 332
Decision Date: 31/07/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nicetin v Price, the plaintiff, Nicetin, appealed against a decision of the primary judge who awarded damages to the defendant, Price, for defamation. The dispute centred around the amount of damages awarded to Price and whether they were excessive or unsustainable. The court was tasked with determining whether the damages awarded were justified and proportionate to the harm caused by the defamatory statements.

The primary legal issue was whether the damages awarded by the learned primary judge were manifestly excessive and unsustainable. The court examined the criteria for assessing damages in defamation cases, considering the extent of harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation and the public interest in freedom of speech. Additionally, the court considered whether it was appropriate to order a review of the assessment of damages and if a lower amount, such as nominal damages, would be more suitable.

The court found that the damages awarded were not manifestly excessive and were sustainable. The court held that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion appropriately. The appeal was struck out, and the extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal was refused. Costs were to be assessed in accordance with the outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal struck out and extension of time within which to

seek leave to appeal refused, with costs to be assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Nicetin v Price [2003] QCA 332
PARTIES:	DJURDINA NICETON (plaintiff/respondent) v WAYNE PRICE (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 630 of 2003 DC No 75 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	31 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 July 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Helman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeal struck out and extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal refused, with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT – where learned primary judge awarded damages to respondent for defamation – whether damages manifestly excessive and unsustainable – whether nominal damages should have been awarded
PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND Court jurisdictional limit – where appellant seeks extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal – whether appellant has right of appeal
District Court of Queensland Act 1967, s 118 (2) (a) (i)
COUNSEL:	R J Clutterbuck for the plaintiff/respondent T Somers for the defendant/appellant
SOLICITORS:	Wellners Lawyers for the plaintiff/respondent Deacon & Milani for the defendant/appellant