Shean v Chan

[2000] QDC 319

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Shean v. Chan [2000] QDC 319

PARTIES:

DAVID ANDREW SHEAN (Plaintiff)
v.
RAYMOND KAM MAN CHAN (Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Plaint 4247 of 1998

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Assessment of damages

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2001

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Damages assessed at $27,030 including exemplary damages of $8,500 and $1,530 interest

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – assessment of damages – false complaint of misconduct by police officer – failure to withdraw or apologise – aggravated and exemplary damages

Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 – applied
Carson v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 – applied
Lamb v. Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1 – followed
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v. McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254 – applied
Corse v. Robinson (Full Court of Western Australia, Appeal FUL9/97, 8.12.97, unreported) – considered
Timms v. Clift [1998] 2 Qd.R. 100 – followed

COUNSEL:

D B Fraser Q.C., with him M. J. Burns for the plaintiff
No appearance for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

McLaughlin & Associates for the plaintiff

1. This is an assessment of damages in a defamation action. By a plaint filed on 6 October 1998 the plaintiff claimed $250,000 damages for defamation, including aggravated and exemplary damages, from the defendant, together with interest by statute. No Entry of Appearance and Defence was filed, and on 15 December 1998 judgment in default was signed by a Deputy Registrar, that the plaintiff recover against the defendant damages to be assessed. The judgment was signed under r.144 of the former District Court Rules. That judgment is, for some reason, not on the court file, but a photocopy of the sealed judgment provided to the plaintiff’s solicitors has been provided to the court by those solicitors.

1. I proceed on the basis that the plaintiff is confined, so far as material facts are concerned, to the material facts pleaded in the plaint, but that matters which go purely to the quantum of unliquidated damages may be amplified by means of the evidence given in the course of the hearing.  Oral evidence was given at the hearing by the plaintiff and some additional witnesses. 

1. The plaintiff was at all material times a police officer.  At about 6 p.m. on 12 November 1995, he was driving south along the South East Freeway through an outer Brisbane suburb when a vehicle which proved to be driven by the defendant overtook him at a high rate of speed: p.20.  The plaintiff was wearing a uniform at the time, but his vehicle was not identified externally as a police vehicle: photo in Exhibit 8.  It was, however, equipped with a siren.  The plaintiff monitored the speed of the defendant’s vehicle at up to 136 kilometres per hour.  The plaintiff subsequently activated the siren and eventually the defendant’s vehicle came to a halt at the side of the road.  The plaintiff issued the defendant a traffic infringement notice for…