1. The defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $250,000 plus interest in the amount of $20,658.71 for defamation by the publications pleaded at paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the further amended statement of claim filed on 19 November 2018.
2. The defendant take all reasonable steps within his power to cause the text of each of the seven matters complained of in paragraphs 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the said further amended statement of claim to be removed from the World Wide Web, including from the Facebook page entitled “Federation of Australian Racing Karters Union”, within seven days, so that the matter complained of may not be downloaded or viewed by any person.
3. The defendant is permanently restrained, whether by himself, his servants, his agents or otherwise howsoever, from publishing, further publishing or causing to be published in any media:
(a) any of the nine matters complained of in paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the said further amended statement of claim or any matter substantially to the same effect as any of those nine matters; and
(b) any of the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c), 7(a), (b), 9(a), (b), 12(a), (b), (c), (d), 15(a), 18(a), 20(a), (b), 25(a), (b), 28(a), (b) and (c) of the said further amended statement of claim or any imputation that does not differ in substance to any of those twenty imputations.
4. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – AS TO CAPACITY, FITNESS, RESPECTABILITY AND THE LIKE – where the plaintiff sues in respect of 10 Facebook posts published by the defendant – where the plaintiff alleges that these publications give rise to 25 defamatory imputations – where the alleged imputations concern the plaintiff’s personal respectability and professional capacity and integrity as CEO of Karting Australia – whether the alleged imputations are defamatory of the plaintiff
DEFAMATION – DEFENCES – JUSTIFICATION – TRUTH – OTHER DEFENCES – where the defendant seeks to establish the defence of justification in respect of all imputations –– where the defendant further contends that any harm, loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the publication of the Facebook posts is inconsequential and trivial for the purposes of s 33 of the Defamation Act2005 (Qld) – whether the imputations are defensible on any of the pleaded grounds
DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – SPECIAL MATTERS – AGGRAVATION – where the plaintiff seeks general and aggravated damages – whether the…
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 O'Reilly v Edgar
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
O'Reilly v Edgar [2019] QSC 24
Case
[2019] QSC 24
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
O'Reilly brought proceedings against Edgar in the District Court of Queensland, alleging defamation based on ten Facebook posts published by Edgar. O'Reilly claimed these posts contained 25 defamatory imputations concerning his personal respectability and professional capacity and integrity as CEO of Karting Australia. The court had to determine if the posts contained defamatory imputations, if any of the defences pleaded by Edgar were available, and whether O'Reilly was entitled to damages and injunctions.
The court found that nine of the posts contained imputations that were defamatory of O'Reilly, namely that he had engaged in corrupt conduct, lacked probity, was unfit to hold his position as CEO, and had engaged in dishonourable conduct. The court rejected Edgar's defence of justification, finding that the posts were not substantially true. The court also found that the harm, loss or damage suffered by O'Reilly was not inconsequential or trivial, and thus section 33 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) did not apply.
The court awarded O'Reilly damages of $250,000, finding that the defendant's conduct, including in the proceeding, warranted an award of aggravated damages. The court ordered Edgar to remove the defamatory posts from the internet and permanently restrained him from publishing the impugned content again. The court also ordered Edgar to pay O'Reilly's costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $250,000 plus interest in the amount of $20,658.71 for defamation by the publications pleaded at paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the further amended statement of claim filed on 19 November 2018.
2. The defendant take all reasonable steps within his power to cause the text of each of the seven matters complained of in paragraphs 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the said further amended statement of claim to be removed from the World Wide Web, including from the Facebook page entitled “Federation of Australian Racing Karters Union”, within seven days, so that the matter complained of may not be downloaded or viewed by any person.
3. The defendant is permanently restrained, whether by himself, his servants, his agents or otherwise howsoever, from publishing, further publishing or causing to be published in any media:
(a) any of the nine matters complained of in paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 24 and 27 of the said further amended statement of claim or any matter substantially to the same effect as any of those nine matters; and
(b) any of the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c), 7(a), (b), 9(a), (b), 12(a), (b), (c), (d), 15(a), 18(a), 20(a), (b), 25(a), (b), 28(a), (b) and (c) of the said further amended statement of claim or any imputation that does not differ in substance to any of those twenty imputations.
4. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed.