Tankard v Chafer

Tankard v Chafer is an appeal against a decision made by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The defendant, Mr Chafer, had defamed the plaintiff, Mr Tankard, and the court had ordered Mr Tankard to pay damages. The appeal focuses on the calculation of interest on the damages and the costs awarded to Mr Chafer’s counsel. Mr Tankard argued that the Magistrate had erred in calculating the interest and in ordering excessive costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrate had correctly calculated the interest on the damages and whether the Magistrate had properly ordered costs for Mr Chafer’s counsel. The court examined the Magistrate’s decision to calculate interest from the date of the first publication of the defamatory matter rather than from the date the proceeding was commenced. The court also looked at the Magistrate’s decision to award substantial costs to Mr Chafer’s counsel, significantly exceeding the fees set out in the Magistrates’ Court Civil Procedure Scale.

The court found that the Magistrate had erred in calculating the interest on the damages. The Magistrate had misapplied the law by calculating the interest from the date of the first publication, rather than from the date the proceeding was commenced as required by statute. The court also found that the Magistrate had not properly considered the scale of costs when ordering excessive fees for Mr Chafer’s counsel. The court noted that while the Magistrates’ Court has the discretion to increase scale fees if it finds them inadequate, the scale should generally be the norm, and significant increases should be justified. The court concluded that the Magistrate had failed to provide adequate reasons for ordering fees significantly higher than the scale.

The court set aside the orders for interest and costs and remitted the proceeding to the Magistrates’ Court to determine the issue of malice and to reassess the costs. The court observed that the scale of costs should generally be followed and that significant deviations should be properly justified. The court also noted that the Magistrate had not provided adequate reasons for ordering excessive counsel fees, which could deter litigants from proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court.