PL & Anor v. WJA

[2008] QDC 34

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

P L & Anor v W J A [2008] QDC 34

PARTIES:

P L

(First plaintiff)

and

N L

(Second plaintiff)

v

W J A

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 400 of 2006

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 March 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2008

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Judgment that the defendant pay the first plaintiff $36,400.

2. Judgment that the defendant pay the second plaintiff $25,930.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR ORAL STATEMENTS – IMPUATATION – GENERALLY – MEANING AND PROOF – where defendant made comments to second plaintiff’s employer – where defendant made comments to second plaintiff’s parents – where comments alleged that the first plaintiff was a paedophile – whether imputations were defamatory – conduct of defendant – whether any defences arise.

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES GENERALLY – compensatory damages – conduct of the defendant – aggravated damages – exemplary damages

Legislation:

Defamation Act 1889 (Qld) ss 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 166

Cases:

Atholwood v Barrett [2004] QDC 505 - considered

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

Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027 – applied

Commonwealth of Australia v Murray [1988] Aust Torts Reports 68,038 - cited

Gregory v Anderson [2005] QDC 377 - considered

Jones v Sutton [2004] NSWCA 439 - cited

Lewis v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd [1964] AC 234 - cited

Kilpatrick v Van Staveren [2002] QDC 293 - considered

Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 - cited

Shean v Chan [2000] QDC 319 - considered

Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497 - cited

Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 – applied

XL Petroleum (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448 - applied

COUNSEL:

A. M. Hoare for the plaintiffs

No appearance by or for the defendant 

SOLICITORS:

Brett Smith & Co for the plaintiffs

No appearance by or for the defendant

Introduction

1. The plaintiffs claim damages for defamation.  The first and second plaintiffs are married to each other.  The second plaintiff is the mother and the defendant is the father of a female child born on 17 October 1991.

1. The claims for defamation relate to statements alleged to have been made by the defendant to the second plaintiff, her grandparents and her employer to the effect that the first plaintiff is a paedophile and that the second plaintiff was protecting him.  By his further amended defence, the defendant:

·    denied making the alleged defamatory statements;

·    denied the alleged defamatory imputations;

· raised defences of truth and public benefit,[1] and qualified protection;[2]

·    contended that the alleged publications were made on an occasion and under circumstances when the plaintiffs were not likely to be injured thereby.[3]

[1] S 15 Defamation Act