O'Hara v Sims

Case [2009] QCA 186

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O'Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186

PARTIES:

BRIAN O'HARA
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
CLIFF SIMS
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12175 of 2008
SC No 11608 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed

2.   Appellant to pay the respondent's costs to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – TRIAL – FUNCTIONS OF JUDGE AND JURY – IN GENERAL – where respondent made statements in letter circulated to club members – where appellant alleged statements conveyed defamatory imputations – where jury found that statements either did not convey imputations or that imputations were not defamatory – whether findings reasonably open to jury

DEFAMATION – PRIVILEGE – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE – STATEMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF A DUTY OR INTEREST – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – REASONABLENESS OF PUBLICATION – where respondent claimed defence of qualified privilege on basis that publication was reasonable in the circumstances under
s 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – where trial judge ruled in favour of respondent – whether trial judge erred

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 22, s 25, s 30, s 31

Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1986] AC 299, cited
Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818, cited
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 31, cited
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519; [1998] HCA 37, cited
Einfeld v Bread Manufacturers of New South Wales, unreported, Supreme Court, NSW, Hunt J, 10 February 1981, cited
Gai Waterhouse v The Herald & Weekly Times Limited, unreported, Supreme Court, NSW, Levine J, 10 June 1997, cited
Gai Waterhouse v The Herald & Weekly Times Limited, unreported, Supreme Court, NSW, Levine J, 29 August 1997, cited
Hall v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2002] 1 Qd R 376; [2000] QCA 308, cited
Holdsworth v Associated Newspapers (1937) 53 TLR 1029, cited
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gacic (2007) 230 CLR 291; [2007] HCA 28, cited

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) 201 ALR 77; [2003] HCA 50, cited
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362, cited
Mallik v McGeown [2008] NSWCA 230, cited
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632; [1979] HCA 3, cited
O'Hara v Sims [2008] QSC 301, affirmed
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 254 ALR 606; [2009] HCA 16, cited
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, cited
Wallachs v March [1928] 1 TPD 531, cited

COUNSEL:

T E F Hughes AO QC, with P J McCafferty, for the appellant
D K Boddice SC, with A…

Continue reading O'Hara v Sims

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
O'Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186
Case
[2009] QCA 186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, O'Hara, brought an action against the respondent, Sims, for defamation, alleging that statements made in a letter circulated to club members conveyed defamatory imputations. The jury found that either the statements did not convey any defamatory imputations or, if they did, the imputations were not defamatory. O'Hara appealed the jury's decision and the trial judge's ruling in favour of Sims on the defence of qualified privilege. The appeal centred on the jury's findings and the trial judge's assessment of the qualified privilege defence under section 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).

The court examined whether the jury's findings were reasonably open to them, considering the nature of the statements and the context in which they were made. The central issue was whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the statements did not convey defamatory imputations or that any imputations were not defamatory. The court also assessed the trial judge's ruling on the qualified privilege defence, examining whether the publication was reasonable in the circumstances. This involved a detailed analysis of the context and necessity of the publication, as well as the respondent's duty or interest in making the statements.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the jury's findings were reasonably open to them, given the evidence and the nature of the statements. The court upheld the trial judge's ruling that the publication was reasonable in the circumstances, affirming the applicability of the qualified privilege defence. The court held that the trial judge did not err in ruling in favour of the respondent on this defence. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs to be assessed on the standard basis

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.