Stevens v Mayberry - [2012] SASC 220

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
STEVENS v MAYBERRY
[2012] SASC 220
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Anderson
20 December 2012
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES - GENERAL DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT - IN GENERAL
DEFAMATION - STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION - PARTICULAR STATEMENTS - INJURY TO REPUTATION IN BUSINESS, PROFESSION, TRADE OR CALLING
The plaintiff was the executive manager of Cycling South Australia - he was also a jounalist, public media figure and a sports manager - the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant were circulated via email to prominent people in the cycling organisation both locally and world-wide - the statements include allegations of unlawful threatening and harrassment, fraud, bringing the sport into disrepute, condoning criminal behaviour within Cycling SA, moral reprehensibility, intimidating witnesses, dishonesty, forgery, corruption - the defendant has not filed a defence - the alleged defamatory statements are deemed to be admitted by the defendant by virtue of the default judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff on 17 August 2012 - whether the statements damaged the plaintiff in the area of his professional work - whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages to compensate him for the harm sustained - whether the plaintiff is entitled to aggravated damages.
Held: The allegations made against the plaintiff have been proved - they caused harm to the plaintiff by damaging him in the area of his professional work - the plaintiff is entitled to an award of $46,575 including interest plus costs - the plaintiff is not entitled to aggravated damages.
Defamation Act 2005 (SA) s 32, s 33 and s 36, referred to.
Woolcott v Seeger [2010] WASC 19; Prendergast v Roberts [2012] QSC 144; Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 104; Uren v John Fairfax & Son Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118; Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44, considered.

STEVENS v MAYBERRY
[2012] SASC 220
Civil

ANDERSON J.
Introduction
The plaintiff has sued the defendant for compensatory damages for defamation. He also claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from publishing further imputations of and defamatory of him. Mr Winter, counsel for the plaintiff, conceded at trial that this was not an appropriate case for an injunction. The plaintiff claims general compensatory damages in an amount of $150,000 together with aggravated compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000.
At the time of the defamatory statements alleged, the plaintiff was the executive manager of Cycling South Australia. He held this position from March 2008 to March 2011. He was a prominent member of the South Australian and Australian cycling community. He was also a journalist and public media figure and a sports manager.
Judgment in default of defence was entered in favour of the plaintiff on 17 August 2012. The alleged defamatory statements summarised below are deemed to be admitted by the defendant by virtue of the default judgment: see r 229(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006. The statements were made between…

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 Stevens v Mayberry

Details

AGLC: Stevens v Mayberry [2012] SASC 220
Case: [2012] SASC 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stevens v Mayberry involved the plaintiff, Mr. Stevens, suing the defendant, Ms. Mayberry, for defamation. The defamatory statements in question were made by Ms. Mayberry, who was also employed by Cycling South Australia, where Mr. Stevens was the executive manager. The dispute centred on the impact these statements had on Mr. Stevens' reputation, particularly in his high-profile role as a sporting journalist and his involvement in the management of Cycling SA. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to Mr. Stevens under Section 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA). This section mandates that the damages must bear a rational relationship to the harm sustained by the plaintiff. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the defamatory statements and their impact on Mr. Stevens' reputation and career.

The court considered the evidence presented, including affidavits from Mr. Stevens, Ruth Rouse, and Robert Alvaro, which detailed the defamatory statements made by Ms. Mayberry and their impact on Mr. Stevens' career and reputation. The court also reviewed emails sent by Ms. Mayberry to prominent figures in the cycling community, which detailed her complaints about Mr. Stevens and alleged his misconduct. Given the high public profile of Mr. Stevens and the severity of the defamatory statements, the court determined that the damages should reflect the substantial harm to his reputation.

The court awarded Mr. Stevens damages, ensuring that the amount was commensurate with the harm sustained. The court emphasised the need for the damages to bear a rational relationship to the harm, as required by Section 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA). The court found that the defamatory statements had significantly impacted Mr. Stevens' reputation and professional standing, justifying the award of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The defendant was served personally with a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitors on 29 October 2012. The letter enclosed the notice of trial and advised that the matter was proceeding on Monday 3 December 2012. The letter indicated that the defendant should seek legal advice. The defendant did not attend court on 3 December and I proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s submissions on damages.Background The defamatory statements are listed in detail in the statement of claim. The plaintiff in his written submissions summarises the conduct imputed against him as follows:1. Unlawful threatening intimidation and harassment2. Fraud3. Causing the sport of cycling to be brought into disrepute4. Condoning criminal behaviour within Cycling SA5. Moral reprehensibility6. Intimidating a witness7. Dishonesty8. An act of forgery9. Corruption The plaintiff complains in particular as to the effect the defamatory statements have had on his high public profile in South Australia as a sporting journalist and his particular involvement within the management of Cycling SA. An award of damages in these circumstances is now controlled by s 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA). The maximum award has been capped in the sum of $250,000. Section 32 provides:32—Damages to bear rational relationship to harmIn determining the amount of damages to be awarded in any defamation proceedings, the court is to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and the amount of damages awarded.The evidence The evidence before me in support of the plaintiff’s claim for damages is contained in an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff and dated 5 July 2012. In addition I have the affidavit of Ruth Rouse dated 3 July 2012 and the second affidavit of Robert Alvaro dated 9 July 2012 in support of Mr Stevens’ claim for damages. Mr Stevens is 55 years of age and is not married but has three children from a previous marriage. He outlines his professional career in television and radio and his partnership in an organisation managing high profile AFL footballers. He also managed other sporting people. He sold his share in this business in 2008. He held the position of executive manager of Cycling South Australia which involved the development of the sport in South Australia and the general administration, marketing and management of 15 clubs associated with Cycling South Australia. The membership base was approximately 1,200 people. In his affidavit Mr Stevens points to the differences of opinion which occurred from the time he took over as executive manager between he and the defendant who was also employed by Cycling South Australia. It is clear that there was a personality clash. Mr Winter asked me particularly to examine the content of four emails sent by the defendant to various prominent people in the cycling organisation both locally and world-wide. On 28 March 2011 the defendant emailed Mr McQuaid who was the president of the International Union of Cyclists and copied the email to the CEO of Cycling Australia and the chairperson of Cycling South Australia. The email details complaints that the defendant had at that time relating to the plaintiff. It tends to go into a large amount of detail regarding Mr Stevens’ background and his involvement in cycling. It details alleged criminal conduct by Mr Stevens and effectively claims a breach of a duty of care by Cycling South Australia and Cycling Australia for failing to protect the defendant from what she calls “the disgraceful behaviour of their executive manager”.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

ANDERSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ANDERSON J

An award of damages in these circumstances is now controlled by s 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA). The maximum award has been capped in the sum of $250,000. Section 32 provides:32—Damages to bear rational relationship to harmIn determining the amount of damages to be awarded in any defamation proceedings, the court is to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and the amount of damages awarded.The evidence The evidence before me in support of the plaintiff’s claim for damages is contained in an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff and dated 5 July 2012. In addition I have the affidavit of Ruth Rouse dated 3 July 2012 and the second affidavit of Robert Alvaro dated 9 July 2012 in support of Mr Stevens’ claim for damages. Mr Stevens is 55 years of age and is not married but has three children from a previous marriage. He outlines his professional career in television and radio and his partnership in an organisation managing high profile AFL footballers. He also managed other sporting people. He sold his share in this business in 2008. He held the position of executive manager of Cycling South Australia which involved the development of the sport in South Australia and the general administration, marketing and management of 15 clubs associated with Cycling South Australia. The membership base was approximately 1,200 people. In his affidavit Mr Stevens points to the differences of opinion which occurred from the time he took over as executive manager between he and the defendant who was also employed by Cycling South Australia. It is clear that there was a personality clash. Mr Winter asked me particularly to examine the content of four emails sent by the defendant to various prominent people in the cycling organisation both locally and world-wide. On 28 March 2011 the defendant emailed Mr McQuaid who was the president of the International Union of Cyclists and copied the email to the CEO of Cycling Australia and the chairperson of Cycling South Australia. The email details complaints that the defendant had at that time relating to the plaintiff. It tends to go into a large amount of detail regarding Mr Stevens’ background and his involvement in cycling. It details alleged criminal conduct by Mr Stevens and effectively claims a breach of a duty of care by Cycling South Australia and Cycling Australia for failing to protect the defendant from what she calls “the disgraceful behaviour of their executive manager”. The second email of 9 May 2011 is written to Michelle Vernier who is the assistant to the president of the International Union of Cyclists. The defendant complains of a failure to address the issues which she raised in the earlier email. She says in the email:I am aware that Mr Stevens has resigned from his position at Cycling SA. This however does not negate the facts that he has broken the law on many occasions, behaved in a morally reprehensible manner and has certainly brought the sport of cycling into disrepute.