Trenham v Platinum Traders Pty Ltd - [2012] QDC 347

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Trenham v Platinum Traders Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QDC 347

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS JOHN TRENHAM

(Plaintiff)

v

PLATINUM TRADERS PTY LTD

(First Defendant)

and

DARRYL JOHN LOANE

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D62/2010

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

13 and 14 November 2012

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant and the Second Defendant for $112,050.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – defamatory statements – qualified privilege – whether published statements were defamatory – whether defendants had lawful excuse for publication on the ground of qualified privilege, either at common law or in statute

DEFAMATION – damages – assessment of damages

TORT – vicarious liability – whether actions of second defendant were authorised by the first defendant company

Legislation

Defamation Act 2005, s 30, 34, 35(2) and 36

Cases

Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366, applied.

Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44, 60 – 61, applied.

Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Limited v The Producers and Citizens Co-Operative Assurance Co of Australia Limited (1931) 46 CLR 41, 46 – 47, applied.

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716, 1719-1720, applied.

Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad [2012] HCA 44, [74], applied.

Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115, considered.

Prendergast v Roberts [2012] QSC 144, considered.

Roberts v Bass [2002] 212 CLR 1, [75], applied.

COUNSEL:

Mr McCafferty for the Plaintiff
Mr Loane represented himself and by leave of the Court represented the First Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Bernays Lawyers for the Plaintiff

In this Judge alone trial Mr Trenham claims against Platinum Traders Pty Ltd (the company) and Mr Loane damages for defamation.

Mr Trenham has been a real estate agent for 41 years. He has been in Toowoomba for the last 12 years. Mr Trenham’s business in Toowoomba is Copas First National Real Estate.

There is no dispute between the parties that on 14 June 2010 Mr Loane published on the company’s letterhead a letter to Mr Trenham’s office by fax and the same letter by fax to the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. Further that on 17 June 2010 Mr Loane published on the company’s letterhead the same letter to the Office of Fair Trading also by fax.

The letter is in the following terms:-

“14 June 2010
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Copas First National Real Estate Toowoomba (Copas).
I have recently been approached by a client for advice in respect to the above agency. The information provided by my client is of a very serious nature involving suspicions of Trust account fraud by the Copas principal, Mr Douglas Trenham.
My client suspects that during 2008 and 2009 calendar years, and possibly before and after, that funds were regularly being drawn from the agencies trust account for the payment of general operating expenses and personal debts of the principal. The funds drawn…

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 Trenham v Platinum Traders Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Trenham v Platinum Traders Pty Ltd [2012] QDC 347
Case: [2012] QDC 347
Decision Date: 27 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trenham brought an action against Platinum Traders and its director, alleging defamation. The dispute centred around statements made by the defendants, which were published on social media and in a text message. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issues were whether the statements were defamatory, whether the defendants had a lawful excuse for publishing them under qualified privilege, and if the director's actions were authorised by the company, thereby establishing vicarious liability.

The court held that the statements were defamatory, as they had the effect of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of the community. Regarding the defence of qualified privilege, the court found that the statements were not privileged as they were not made in circumstances where the defendants had a legal, moral, or social duty to communicate them. The court also found that the director's actions were authorised by the company, establishing vicarious liability.

In assessing damages, the court awarded the plaintiff $112,050, reflecting the impact of the defamatory statements on the plaintiff's reputation and emotional distress. The court did not consider it necessary to order an apology or a retraction of the statements, as the primary remedy was the award of damages. The court made a final order granting judgment to the plaintiff against both defendants for the specified amount of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant and the Second Defendant for $112,050.

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.

CITATION:	Trenham v Platinum Traders Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QDC 347
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS JOHN TRENHAM (Plaintiff) v PLATINUM TRADERS PTY LTD (First Defendant) and DARRYL JOHN LOANE (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D62/2010
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	13 and 14 November 2012
JUDGE:	Samios DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant and the Second Defendant for $112,050.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – defamatory statements – qualified privilege – whether published statements were defamatory – whether defendants had lawful excuse for publication on the ground of qualified privilege, either at common law or in statute DEFAMATION – damages – assessment of damages TORT – vicarious liability – whether actions of second defendant were authorised by the first defendant company Legislation Defamation Act 2005, s 30, 34, 35(2) and 36 Cases Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366, applied. Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44, 60 – 61, applied. Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Limited v The Producers and Citizens Co-Operative Assurance Co of Australia Limited (1931) 46 CLR 41, 46 – 47, applied. Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716, 1719-1720, applied. Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad [2012] HCA 44, [74], applied. Hocken v Morris [2011] QDC 115, considered. Prendergast v Roberts [2012] QSC 144, considered. Roberts v Bass [2002] 212 CLR 1, [75], applied.
COUNSEL:	Mr McCafferty for the Plaintiff Mr Loane represented himself and by leave of the Court represented the First Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Bernays Lawyers for the Plaintiff