Roberts v Prendergast

Case [2013] QCA 47

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 47

PARTIES:

SHANE GAVIN ROBERTS
(appellant)
v
TREVOR PAUL PRENDERGAST
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5592 of 2012
SC No 7567 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2012

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Liberty to each party to make written submissions with respect to the costs of the appeal within seven days of the date of pronouncement of these orders.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – where the jury found that the defendant made defamatory statements about the plaintiff in three conversations – where damages were assessed at $54,375 by the trial judge – whether that sum had an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm sustained as required by s 34 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) – where there was regard given by the trial judge to the grapevine effect of defamatory statements made – whether it must be proved that the publication of the defamatory remarks caused any actual damage to the plaintiff’s reputation – whether medical evidence is required when assessing the emotional impact of defamatory statements on the plaintiff

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) s 22(3), s 34, s 38

Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166, cited
Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 31, cited
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027; [1972] UKHL 3, applied
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176; [1996] NSWSC 651, followed
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946; [2005] EWCA Civ 75, followed
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327; [2003] HCA 52, applied
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118; [1966] HCA 40, applied

COUNSEL:

P A Freeburn SC for the appellant
R J Anderson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Cooper Grace Ward for the appellant
Bennett & Philp for the respondent

  1. CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA.  I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour, and with his reasons.

  2. FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the orders proposed by his Honour. 

  1. GOTTERSON JA: Shane Gavin Roberts, the appellant, appeals against a judgment entered against him on 1 June 2012 in favour of Trevor Paul Prendergast, the respondent in proceedings BS7567 of 2010 for damages for defamation brought by the respondent against the appellant in the Supreme Court.  A trial in the proceeding was held in Brisbane before a judge and jury over two days commencing on 28 May 2012.  Submissions on damages were made on the third day…

Continue reading Roberts v Prendergast

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 47
Case
[2013] QCA 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Roberts, against the decision of the trial judge, who assessed general damages at $54,375 after the jury found that the defendant, Prendergast, had made defamatory statements about Roberts. The court of appeal was required to determine whether the damages awarded by the trial judge bore an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm sustained, as required by s 34 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). Additionally, the appeal questioned whether it was necessary to prove that the defamatory remarks caused actual damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and if medical evidence was required when assessing the emotional impact of such statements.

The court of appeal considered the nature of the defamatory statements and the evidence presented regarding the harm sustained by the plaintiff. The trial judge had taken into account the grapevine effect of the defamatory statements, which was a relevant factor in assessing the extent of harm. The court noted that the assessment of damages for defamation requires a holistic approach, considering all relevant circumstances, including the impact on the plaintiff's reputation and emotional wellbeing. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in assessing the damages, and the sum awarded was commensurate with the harm sustained by the plaintiff. The court also clarified that while evidence of actual damage to reputation can be a factor, it is not a strict requirement for awarding damages in defamation cases. Furthermore, medical evidence is not mandatory when assessing the emotional impact of defamatory statements, as long as the trial judge considers all relevant evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the court granted liberty to both parties to submit written costs submissions within seven days of the pronouncement of the orders. This decision reinforces the principles of assessing damages in defamation cases, emphasizing the importance of a balanced and contextual approach to determining the appropriate compensation for harm sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Liberty to each party to make written submissions with respect to the costs of the appeal within seven days of the date of pronouncement of these orders.

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.