Legal Research
Cases
Wale v Hollins

Wale v Hollins

Case [2023] QDC 116 14 June 2023

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Wale v Hollins [2023] QDC 116

PARTIES:
JASON WALE

(plaintiff)

v
HUMPHREY HOLLINS

(defendant)

FILE NO: D 86 of 2022

DIVISION: Civil

PROCEEDING: Claim/Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Cairns

DELIVERED ON: 14 June 2023

DELIVERED AT: Cairns

HEARING DATE: 5 June 2023

JUDGE: Morzone KC DCJ

ORDER:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for defamation fixed in the amount of $120,000.00, together with interest of $3,600.00 from 15 June 2022 to date of this judgment, inclusive.

2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this action (including reserved costs, if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL PROCEEDING – DEFAMATION – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Six Defamatory publications & imputations – damages for defamation – interest – costs.

LEGISLATION:
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15.
Defamation Act 1995 (Qld), s 34.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 693 & 698.

CASES:
Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144

Banks v Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417

BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC 64

Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, at 1125.

Carson v John Fairfax & SonsLtd (1993) 178 CLR 44

Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016 ] 1 Qd R 89

Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108

Karzon v Pavlovic [2022] QDC 187 not disturbed on appeal

Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No. 2) [2011] QDC 37.

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

O’Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1988) 193 CLR 72

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460

Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327Alphabetical order

Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497

COUNSEL: Michael Jonsson KC for the Plaintiff.

SOLICITORS: Miller Bou Samra Lawyers for the Plaintiff.
The Defendant was self represented.

Summary

The plaintiff, the secretary and general manager of Cazalys Cairns Limited, sues the defendant for multiple defamatory emails and letters to his board directors, officials, politicians and journalists, imputing the plaintiff's personal and professional conduct. The imputations are serious and attack the plaintiff's personal integrity, professional competence, and moral character.
The plaintiff was awarded judgment on his claim on 10 March 2023, and now damages are to be assessed.
The determinative issues in the proceeding are:
1.   What is the assessment of damages for the plaintiff?
2.   What interest should apply to such damages?
3.   What costs order should follow the event?
The plaintiff has evidenced the impact of the defamatory publications the subject of the proceeding, as well as a consequential article in a local newspaper, on his reputation, emotional well-being, and professional standing. His evidence was neither challenged nor contradicted. The damages are compensatory of personal distress, reparation for harm to reputation, and vindication of the plaintiff's standing. The defendant's lack of bona fides, refusal to retract or apologise, and his adverse conduct during the proceedings justifies…

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 Wale v Hollins

Details

AGLC: Wale v Hollins [2023] QDC 116
Case: [2023] QDC 116
Decision Date: 14 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case are Wale, the plaintiff, and Hollins, the defendant. The dispute concerns defamation, specifically six defamatory publications and imputations made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The court in question is an Australian court of law. The plaintiff, Wale, sought damages for the defamatory publications made by the defendant, Hollins. The plaintiff argued that the defamatory statements had caused harm to his reputation and sought compensation in the form of damages. Additionally, the plaintiff requested interest on the damages from a specific date until the date of the judgment. The defendant, Hollins, did not contest the defamatory nature of the statements but rather contested the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The court was required to decide on the legal issues of whether the defamatory statements were indeed published and if they had caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The court also needed to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for the harm caused by the defamatory statements. Furthermore, the court had to calculate the interest on the damages from a specific date until the date of the judgment. Lastly, the court was required to decide on the costs of the action, including any reserved costs, and determine whether they should be paid by the defendant or the plaintiff.

The court found that the defamatory statements made by the defendant were indeed published and had caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The court assessed the damages to be awarded to the plaintiff based on the severity and impact of the defamatory statements. The court calculated the interest on the damages from the specified date until the date of the judgment. The court decided that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to this action, including reserved costs if any, on the standard basis.

In conclusion, the court awarded the plaintiff, Wale, damages for defamation in the amount of $120,000.00, together with interest of $3,600.00 from 15 June 2022 to the date of this judgment, inclusive. The defendant, Hollins, was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to this action, including reserved costs, if any, on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for defamation fixed in the amount of $120,000.00, together with interest of $3,600.00 from 15 June 2022 to date of this judgment, inclusive.

2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this action (including reserved costs, if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.

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

The plaintiff has been wholly successful, and costs ought follow the event.Conclusion For these reasons, I make the following orders:(a)Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for defamation fixed in the amount of $120,000.00, together with interest of $3,600.00 from 15 June 2022 to date of this judgment, inclusive. (b)The defendant will pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this action (including reserved costs, if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Wale v Hollins [2023] QDC 116

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 20 of 20 shown

Pavlovic v Karzon
[2023] QCA 37 Para 26

…00 as a global allowance inclusive of aggravated damages, which was not disturbed by any appeal. [19] Karzon v Pavlovic [2022] QDC 187, and on appeal [2023] QCA 37.…
Karzon v Pavlovic
[2022] QDC 187 Para 26

…l court in the amount of $70,000 as a global allowance inclusive of aggravated damages, which was not disturbed by any appeal. [19] Karzon v Pavlovic [2022] QDC 187, and on appeal [2023] QCA 37.…
Weatherup v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2016] QSC 266 Para 29

…I think that these distinctions render this case more serious than Karzon .[20] [20] Cf. Weatherup v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 266.…
Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No. 2)
[2011] QDC 37 Para 35

…as his Honour then was), citing Einstein J in Mobile Innovations Ltd v Vodafone Pacific Ltd [2003] NSWSC 423 at [4]; Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No. 2) [2011] QDC 37 at [34] per McGill DCJ. [28] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1988) 193 CLR 72 per McHugh J (with whom Brennan CJ agreed)…
O'Hara v Sims
[2009] QCA 186 Para 20

…meanings than a publication might possibly carry.[11] [10] Cf. Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 at [36]; and O’Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186 at [33]. [11] Cf. Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 para [10].…
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton
[2009] HCA 16 Para 20

…, making them relatively more serious defamatory meanings than a publication might possibly carry.[11] [10] Cf. Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 at [36]; and O’Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186 at [33]. [11] Cf. Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 para [10].…
BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2)
[2009] QSC 64 Para 35

…170 CLR 534, Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108 & Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144 at 148. [27] BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC 64 at [8] per McMurdo J (as his Honour then was), citing Einstein J in Mobile Innovations Ltd v Vodafone Pacific Ltd [2003] NSWSC 423 at [4]; Kilvington…
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2003] HCA 52 Para 11

…reputation; and thirdly, they aim to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation by influencing the opinions of others. [1] Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327 at [60] with footnotes omitted [2] Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44.…
Mobile Innovations Ltd v Vodafone Pacific Ltd
[2003] NSWSC 423 Para 35

…& Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC 64 at [8] per McMurdo J (as his Honour then was), citing Einstein J in Mobile Innovations Ltd v Vodafone Pacific Ltd [2003] NSWSC 423 at [4]; Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No. 2) [2011] QDC 37 at [34] per McGill DCJ. [28] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1988) 193 CLR 72 per McHugh J (…
Oshlack v Richmond River Council
[1998] HCA 11 Para 35

…ceptional case[28] before depriving a successful party of costs, or even order a successful party to pay costs. [25] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at 81 per Gaudron and Gummow JJ [26] Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108 & Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144 at 148.…
Crampton v Nugawela
[1996] NSWCA 128 Para 18

…ept that a substantial amount of damages should be awarded to ensure long-lasting vindication for the plaintiff. [8] Cerutti para [60]; and compare Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR, 176 at 194-195.…
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd
[1993] HCA 31 Para 11

…g the opinions of others. [1] Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327 at [60] with footnotes omitted [2] Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44.…
Latoudis v Casey
[1990] HCA 59 Para 35

…order a successful party to pay costs. [25] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at 81 per Gaudron and Gummow JJ [26] Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108 & Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144 at 148. [27] BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC…
Cilli v Abbott
[1981] FCA 70 Para 35

…party to pay costs. [25] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at 81 per Gaudron and Gummow JJ [26] Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108 & Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144 at 148. [27] BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC 64 at [8] per McMurdo J…
Cilli, Luigi Cino v Abbott, John Albert
[1981] FCA 72 Para 35

…sts. [25] Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at 81 per Gaudron and Gummow JJ [26] Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108 & Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144 at 148. [27] BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC 64 at [8] per McMurdo J (as his Ho…
Triggell v Pheeney
[1951] HCA 23 Para 22

…ra [37]; citing Costello v Random House Pty Ltd (1999) 137 ACTR 1, at 46. [15] Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd at para [37]; Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497, at 514. [16] Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd at [39]; citing Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 at 151.…
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd
[1966] HCA 40 Para 22

…ara [37]; Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497, at 514. [16] Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd at [39]; citing Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 at 151.…
Costello Abbott & Ors v Random House Australia Pty Ltd
[1999] ACTSC 13 Para 22

…aggravates the sense of hurt for him.[16] [14] Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd , at 110-111, para [37]; citing Costello v Random House Pty Ltd (1999) 137 ACTR 1, at 46. [15] Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd at para [37]; Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497, at 514. [16] Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd at [39]; citing Uren v Jo…
[1972] AC 1027
[1972] AC 1027 Para 14

…a defamation excites the anger and resentment of the victim and often generates a desire for retribution’.[6] [5] Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, at 1125. [6] Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44, at 104-105.…
UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton
105 ER 536 Para 20

…which he derives his livelihood, making them relatively more serious defamatory meanings than a publication might possibly carry.[11] [10] Cf. Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 at [36]; and O’Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186 at [33]. [11] Cf. Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 para [10].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
693 2 mentions (from Para 34)
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld)
15 1 mention (from Para 33)
Defamation Act 1889 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 10)
Defamation Act 2005 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 10)

CITATION:	Wale v Hollins [2023] QDC 116
PARTIES:	JASON WALE (plaintiff) v HUMPHREY HOLLINS (defendant)
FILE NO:	D 86 of 2022
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Claim/Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2023
JUDGE:	Morzone KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for defamation fixed in the amount of $120,000.00, together with interest of $3,600.00 from 15 June 2022 to date of this judgment, inclusive. 2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this action (including reserved costs, if any) to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL PROCEEDING – DEFAMATION – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Six Defamatory publications & imputations – damages for defamation – interest – costs.
LEGISLATION:	Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15. Defamation Act 1995 (Qld), s 34. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 693 & 698.
CASES:	Anstee v Jennings [1935] VLR 144 Banks v Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417 BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Coppell AG (No. 2) [2009] QSC 64 Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, at 1125. Carson v John Fairfax & SonsLtd (1993) 178 CLR 44 Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016 ] 1 Qd R 89 Cilli v Abbott (1981) 53 FLR 108 Karzon v Pavlovic [2022] QDC 187 not disturbed on appeal Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No. 2) [2011] QDC 37. Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 O’Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1988) 193 CLR 72 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327Alphabetical order Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
COUNSEL:	Michael Jonsson KC for the Plaintiff.
SOLICITORS:	Miller Bou Samra Lawyers for the Plaintiff. The Defendant was self represented.