Walden v Danieletto

[2018] QDC 221

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Walden v Danieletto [2018] QDC 221
PARTIES:	JOHN NIGEL WALDEN (Appellant)
v
ATTILIO DANIELETTO (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D140/18
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	8 October 2018
JUDGE:	Kent QC, DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO

DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS –

CHARGES OF INSOLVENCY OR FINANCIAL

DEFAULT – where the respondent body corporate manager said the plaintiff was “unfinancial” during a body corporate

meeting – where the plaintiff claimed that this statement was defamatory – where the alleged imputations included that the

plaintiff was a delinquent payer who could not afford his

body corporate levies – whether the assertion of an unpaid

debt is defamatory

DEFAMATION – OTHER DEFENCES – PLAINTIFF’S

CHARACTER NOT LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED -

SLANDER – where the respondent body corporate manager said the plaintiff was “unfinancial” during a body corporate

meeting – where the plaintiff claimed that this statement was defamatory – where the respondent relied on the defence of triviality as provided in s 33 of the Defamation Act – whether

the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff

was unlikely to sustain any harm

DEFAMATION – PRIVILEGE – QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
– STATEMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF A DUTY OR

INTEREST – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – ON MATTERS OF COMMON INTEREST – where the

respondent body corporate manager said the plaintiff was

“unfinancial” during a body corporate meeting – where the

plaintiff claimed that this statement was defamatory – where

the members of the body corporate had an interest in knowing

if lots were “unfinancial” as it altered their voting rights –

where the defendant reasonably believed the information was

true – whether the defence of qualified privilege was been

established

COUNSEL:	M Pope for the Appellant
B Strangman for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Derek Legal for the Appellant
ABJK Lawyers for the Respondent
Introduction

1. The appellant appeals against the determination of the Magistrates Court at

Southport on 16 May 2018 whereby the appellant’s claim for damages for

defamation was dismissed. Four grounds of appeal are pressed.

First ground:

The learned Magistrate was wrong in finding that the publications were not defamatory of the appellant.

1. There were two publications the subject of the action. As set out in paragraph 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the defendant, who was the body corporate manager for the Broadwater Tower Body Corporate, of which the plaintiff was a

unit owner, said at an extraordinary general meeting “a voting paper for lot 41 was not admitted because the lot was un-financial”. This was said in the presence of a

number of other unit holders present at the meeting. It is said that the plaintiff later approached the defendant saying that he was in fact financial. This seems to have led to the second alleged publication, which was that on 4 July 2011 the defendant sent to all members of the body corporate, minutes of the…