Prendergast v Roberts

[2012] QSC 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prendergast v Roberts [2012] QSC 144

PARTIES:

TREVOR PAUL PRENDERGAST
(plaintiff)
v
SHANE GAVIN ROBERTS
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS7567 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane 

HEARING DATE:

28-30 May 2012

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $54,375 (which includes interest of $4,375 to the date of judgment)

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – where the jury found that the defendant made defamatory statements about the plaintiff in three conversations – where there was limited publication, but in a business context in a regional community – where the plaintiff’s reputation was harmed and the plaintiff suffered hurt and distress as a result of the making of the defamatory statements – where vindication of the plaintiff’s reputation was not insignificant in the circumstances – where defendant persisted at trial in his denial that he said the words attributed to him in the three conversations – whether there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and an award of damages of $50,000

Defamation Act 2005, s 22, s 34, s 35, s 38

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

Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, considered

COUNSEL:

R J Anderson for the plaintiff
P A Freeburn SC and C K George for the defendant 

SOLICITORS:

Bennett and Philp for the plaintiff
Cooper Grace Ward for the defendant

1. The trial of the plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation was conducted before a jury who found that the defendant had made defamatory statements about the plaintiff in three separate conversations respectively with Mr Shore, Mr Woods and Mr Minchell.

1. It is therefore necessary pursuant to s 22(3) of the Defamation Act 2005 (the Act) to determine the amount of damages that should be awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims both general and aggravated compensatory damages.

The circumstances of the defamatory statements

1. The plaintiff is a registered builder who has been working as a builder since about 1975.

1. Mr Shore’s business provided shed solutions for customers and regularly used the plaintiff to construct sheds that Mr Shore’s business was engaged to provide.  Mr Shore was approached by the defendant to quote for building new premises for his company which conducted a powdercoating and sandblasting business.  Mr Shore referred the defendant to the plaintiff. 

1. The plaintiff and the defendant’s company entered into a building contract for the construction of the premises that was undertaken in the latter part of 2008 and into early 2009.  The plaintiff handed keys to the new premises to the defendant at the end of January 2009 (even though the works were not completed) and the defendant commenced the relocation of his business into the new premises.  The office for the business was in operation in the new premises by 2 February 2009 and the powdercoating and sandblasting operations had commenced by…