Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. The parties are directed to provide, within 21 days, written submissions, not exceeding five pages, regarding interest and costs.
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – IMPUTATIONS – two publications – publication made to police officer and publication made to family law practitioner – whether the statements alleged by the plaintiff were established – whether imputations alleged were defamatory.
DEFAMATION – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE – TRIVIALITY – whether defences arose in the circumstances.
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – AGGRAVATED DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – damages awarded for first publication.
COUNSEL:
N H Ferrett KC and J R Moxon for the plaintiff
N G Olson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Romans & Romans for the plaintiff Gorval Lynch for the defendant
The plaintiff seeks damages for defamation against his ex-girlfriend by virtue of two publications shortly after the parties’ relationship soured. The first publication is said to have occurred by the defendant to the New South Wales police (“the first publication”) and the second publication is said to have occurred by the defendant to the lawyers acting for the plaintiff’s ex-wife in family law proceedings (“the second publication”). Consequently, the plaintiff has sought vindication to his reputation by an award of damages and, given what he asserts is the vindictive nature of the defendant’s conduct, an award for exemplary damages is sought.
The defendant opposes the relief sought on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant made the publications (as alleged or in substantially the same terms). If the defendant is found to have made the publications, the defendant has contended that the first publication did not convey the defamatory imputations as suggested by the plaintiff. Additionally, each of the matters complained of was published on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law and/or the circumstances of the publications were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm and there is no evidence to infer that either publication caused any significant reputational harm, such that only a nominal sum should be ordered (if any).[1]
[1]Statutory triviality then arising under s 33 of the Defamation Act2005.
The publications were purportedly made within a day of each other, being 19 March and 20 March 2020. On the plaintiff’s case, that followed the implosion of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant which was said to have occurred on 19 March 2020 after the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had been in a de facto relationship with a Mr Robertson for approximately seven years and he had a conversation with Mr Robertson to that effect. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant commenced in August…
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 Sherman v Lamb
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sherman v Lamb [2022] QDC 215
Case
[2022] QDC 215
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sherman v Lamb is a defamation case in which the plaintiff, Sherman, sought damages from the defendant, Lamb, for defamatory statements made about him. The dispute arose from two separate publications: one made to a police officer and another made to a family law practitioner. The court was tasked with determining whether the statements alleged by the plaintiff were established, and whether the imputations were defamatory. Additionally, the court examined whether the defences of qualified privilege and triviality were applicable.
The court had to consider the nature and content of the statements made by Lamb to determine if they were defamatory. The plaintiff argued that the statements made to both the police officer and the family law practitioner were defamatory, while the defendant contended that the statements were not defamatory or were protected by qualified privilege. The court also needed to decide if the statements were trivial, which could negate the defamation claim. Furthermore, the court had to assess the appropriate amount of damages for the defamatory publications.
In its judgment, the court found that the statements made by Lamb were indeed defamatory. The court ruled that the imputations made were defamatory and not protected by qualified privilege. The defence of triviality was also rejected. As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff damages for the first publication. The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff, awarding $10,000 in damages. The court further directed the parties to submit written submissions regarding interest and costs within 21 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. The parties are directed to provide, within 21 days, written submissions, not exceeding five pages, regarding interest and costs.