Noone v Brown

Case [2019] QDC 133

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Noone v Brown [2019] QDC 133

PARTIES:

MAXINE NOONE
(plaintiff)

v

HEATHER MANSELL BROWN
(defendant)

FILE NO: 

1510/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 August 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 25 and 28 June 2019

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $15,000.00.1.     

I will hear the parties on the question of costs.2.     

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – IMPUTATIONS – whether imputations alleged are available

DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – JUSTIFICATION –TRUTH – FAIR REPORT – MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST – OTHER DEFENCES – whether the defendant has established defence – whether malice has been established by the plaintiff

DEFAMATION – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – how much should be awarded

DEFAMATION – AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – how much should be awarded (if any)

DEFAMATION- INJUNCTIONS – whether should be granted 

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) ss 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36

Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulations 1996 (Qld) s 110

Amalgamated Television v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158

Bale v Mills (2011) 81 NSWLR 498

Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Limited

(2004) 218 CLR 366; [2004] HCA 5

Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185

CLR 183; [1996] HCA 47

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA

34

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67

Calwell v Ipec Australia Ltd (1975) 135 CLR 321; [1975]

HCA 47

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

[1993] HCA 31

Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] 1 Qd R

89; [2014] QCA 33

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR

519; [1998] HCA 37

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock (2007) 232 CLR

245; [2007] HCA 60

Cheng v Tse Wai Chun (2000) 3 HKCFAR 339

Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176; [1996]

NSWSC 651

Cripps v Vakras [2014] VSC 279

David Syme & Co v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234; [1918]

HCA 50

Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Kazal

(2018) 97 NSWLR 547; [2018] NSWCA 77

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR

1716; [2005] HCA 52

Fraser v Holmes [2009] NSWCA 36

French v Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 553

Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102; [1947] HCA 13

Hall-Gibbs Mercantile Agency Ltd v Dun (1910) 12 CLR 84;

[1910] HCA 66

Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Ahmed (2015) 90 NSWLR 695;

[2015] NSWCA 290

Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (2015) 332

ALR 257; [2015] FCA 652

Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135

Howden v Truth & Sportsman Limited (1937) 58 CLR 416;

[1937] HCA 74

Irving v Penguin Books Ltd [2000] EWHC QB 115

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O’Shane (2005) ATR

81-789

Jones v Skelton

Continue reading Noone v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Noone v Brown [2019] QDC 133
Case
[2019] QDC 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Noone sued Brown for defamation. Noone alleged that Brown made statements that defamed him. The court had to decide if the statements were defamatory, if Brown had a valid defence, and if so, how much in damages and costs Noone should receive.

The court first examined the statements to determine if they were defamatory. The court found that the statements were indeed defamatory as they implied Noone was dishonest and unfit for his role. Next, the court considered the defences Brown raised. Brown argued the statements were true, but the court found the statements were not substantiated. Brown also claimed the statements were a fair report of a matter of public interest, but the court ruled this defence was not valid. The court found Brown had acted with malice, which influenced the damages awarded.

The court assessed the damages Noone was entitled to receive. The court awarded Noone $15,000.00 in general damages for the harm to his reputation. The court also considered but did not award aggravated damages due to the lack of evidence of severe mental distress. The court declined to grant an injunction as Noone had not demonstrated the need for ongoing protection. Finally, the court scheduled a further hearing to discuss the costs of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $15,000.00.1.

I will hear the parties on the question of costs.2.

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.