Walden v Danieletto - [2018] QMC 10

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walden v Danieletto [2018] QMC 10

PARTIES:

Jon Nigel WALDEN

v

Attilio DANIELETTO

FILE NO/S:

M2825/2011

PROCEEDING:

Civil Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2018

MAGISTRATE:

A.H. Sinclair

ORDER:

The Plaintiffs claim is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – Imputations - Defences – Triviality – Substantial Truth – Qualified Privilege

AUTHORITIES:

Australian Ocean Line Pty Ltd v West Australian Newspapers Ltd and Another [1985] 58 ALR 548
Boyd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 449
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632
Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Sorrenson v McNamara [2003] QCA 149
Smith v Farren-Price [2004] QDC 225
Smith v Lucht [2016] QCA 267
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL (1975) 134 CLR 1

Sections 14, 14A Acts Interpretation Act 1954
Sections 25, 30 and 33 Defamation Act 2005
Section 93 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008

COUNSEL:

Mr M. Pope for the Plaintiff

Mr B. Strangman for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Derek Legal for the Plaintiff

ABKJ Lawyers for the Defendant

Summary

Mr Waldon owned a unit in the a Body Corporate. He says that the Mr Danieltello who worked for the Body Corporate manager, said at an EGM “a voting paper for Lot 41 was not admitted because the lot was unfinancial”. He also later caused those words to be put in the minutes.

Mr Walson says he was defamed and claims $100,000 in damages. The issues for determination on the pleading are:

1.   What was said and when?
2.   Was it defamatory?
a.   Did it carry the implications alleged?
b.   Where they likely to trip one of the 3 tests which point to it being defamatory?

3. Is there a defence?
a. Was it trivial, substantially true or the subject of qualified privilege?

4. Damages

These reasons conclude:

1.   It was said both in the meeting and the minutes that the Plaintiff’s vote did not count towards the motion because he was ‘unfinancial’. I find it was said at the start of the meeting and in the context of informing those gathered about which votes had been received and were being counted towards the vote on the agenda.
2.   I find it did not carry any of the imputations alleged and is not defamatory.
a.   All it conveyed in context was that at that instant in time, the Plaintiff wasn’t fully paid up with all his Body Corporate fees. There being a myriad of reasons why people don’t pay their bills on time, such a statement does not carry the imputations pleaded.
b.   Such a statement would not cause ordinary people to shun or avoid Mr Walden. Any adverse reactions Mr Walden and his wife experienced were more likely than not the result of other conduct which made Body Corporate members feel aggrieved towards…

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 Walden v Danieletto

Details

AGLC: Walden v Danieletto [2018] QMC 10
Case: [2018] QMC 10
Decision Date: 16 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walden v Danieletto was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Walden, sought to establish that the defendants, Mr Danieletto and Mr Brown, had defamed them. The plaintiffs alleged that defamatory statements were made by the defendants in the context of a personal relationship dispute, which resulted in significant harm to their reputations. The defendants responded by arguing that the statements were either trivial, substantially true, or protected by qualified privilege.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' statements constituted defamation and, if so, whether any of the defences raised by the defendants were applicable. The court had to evaluate the gravity of the alleged defamatory statements, consider the context in which they were made, and assess the truthfulness and the scope of any qualified privilege that might apply. The court also needed to weigh the public interest in protecting the plaintiffs' reputations against the defendants' right to freedom of expression.

In its judgment, the court found that while the statements made by the defendants could be considered defamatory, the overall impact of the statements was minimal. The court concluded that the imputations did not seriously harm the plaintiffs' reputations to a significant degree, thereby falling within the defence of triviality. Additionally, the court found that substantial truth was applicable, as the statements contained elements that were substantially true, even if not entirely accurate. The court also acknowledged the existence of a qualified privilege in the context of the relationship dispute, which provided further protection for the defendants' statements. As a result, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Plaintiffs claim is dismissed

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:	Walden v Danieletto [2018] QMC 10
PARTIES:	Jon Nigel WALDEN v Attilio DANIELETTO
FILE NO/S:	M2825/2011
PROCEEDING:	Civil Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Southport Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2018
MAGISTRATE:	A.H. Sinclair
ORDER:	The Plaintiffs claim is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – Imputations - Defences – Triviality – Substantial Truth – Qualified Privilege
AUTHORITIES:	Australian Ocean Line Pty Ltd v West Australian Newspapers Ltd and Another [1985] 58 ALR 548 Boyd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 449 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632 Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 Sorrenson v McNamara [2003] QCA 149 Smith v Farren-Price [2004] QDC 225 Smith v Lucht [2016] QCA 267 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL (1975) 134 CLR 1 Sections 14, 14A Acts Interpretation Act 1954 Sections 25, 30 and 33 Defamation Act 2005 Section 93 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Pope for the Plaintiff Mr B. Strangman for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Derek Legal for the Plaintiff ABKJ Lawyers for the Defendant