Legal Research
Cases
Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services

Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services

Case [2011] QSC 316 28 October 2011

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services & Anor [2011] QSC 316

PARTIES:

John Edmond WALKER

(Plaintiff)

and

VEDA ADVANTAGE INFORMATION SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS LTD (ACN 000 602 862)

(First Defendant)

and

DEBT PURCHASE AUSTRALIA (ACN 077 935 329)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

TS601 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2011

JUDGE:

North J

ORDER:

1. That the application filed by the plaintiff on 3 March 2011 be dismissed.

2. That the amended claim and amended statement of claim filed 23 March 2011 and the further amended claim and further amended statement of claim filed 31 March 2011 be struck out.

3. That the applicant(plaintiff) pay the respondent's (first defendant's) costs of the application to be assessed.

4. That the application filed by the first defendant on 5 May 2011 be allowed.

5. That there be judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff in the claim.

6. That the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to both the application and the claim to be assessed.

7. That the application filed by the plaintiff on 29 April 2011 be dismissed.

8. That the applicant (plaintiff) pay the second defendant's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.

9. That all parties have liberty to apply in writing and make submissions for different costs order or a variation of any order as to costs.

10. Direct that any written submission for an order concerning costs be served on any other party and delivered to the Registry within 14 days.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - where plaintiff an applicant for credit - where defendant a credit reporting agency - whether duty of care owed - whether duty of care owed concerning defamatory publication - coherence of the law

DEFAMATION - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - MALICE

PRACTICE - PROCEDURE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - PLEADING - PARTICULARS

Privacy Act 1988 (Cwth), section 11A, section 11B, section 18J.

Defamation Act2005 (NSW), section 30, section 37

Defamation Act2005 (Qld), section 30, section 37

UCPR, rule 293

Headley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company (1997) 189 CLR 250

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125

Sattin v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32

Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562

Cornwall & Ors v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269

Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 305 (1 April 2009)

Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118

Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1980-1982) 154 CLR 87

Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507

Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 201 CLR 573

Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309

Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd

(2004) 218 CLR 366

Roberts v Bass (2002)…

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 Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services

Details

AGLC: Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services [2011] QSC 316
Case: [2011] QSC 316
Decision Date: 28 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services involved the plaintiff, a credit applicant, suing the defendant, a credit reporting agency, over alleged negligent and defamatory publication of credit information. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary judge, Judge Colvin, dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff's claims were initially brought against the credit reporting agency and a financial institution. The plaintiff alleged that the credit reporting agency was negligent in its failure to properly verify credit information, and defamatory in publishing false information. The financial institution was also sued for vicarious liability.

The court was required to determine whether the credit reporting agency owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty was breached. The court also had to consider whether the agency was liable for defamation, and if the publication was made with malice. Additionally, the court needed to address the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings in light of the relevant statutory requirements.

The court held that the credit reporting agency did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as it was not foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer harm from the agency's actions. The court also found that the publication was not defamatory, and was made with qualified privilege, as the agency had a legitimate interest in reporting credit information. The court further held that the plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient, as they did not provide adequate particulars of the alleged negligence and defamation. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

The court made several orders, including dismissing the plaintiff's application and striking out the amended claims and statements of claim. The court also granted the first defendant's application and ordered judgment in its favour. The court further dismissed the plaintiff's second application and ordered the plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs. The court allowed all parties to apply for different costs orders or variations of any order as to costs, and directed that any written submissions be served on all parties and delivered to the Registry within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application filed by the plaintiff on 3 March 2011 be dismissed.

2. That the amended claim and amended statement of claim filed 23 March 2011 and the further amended claim and further amended statement of claim filed 31 March 2011 be struck out.

3. That the applicant(plaintiff) pay the respondent's (first defendant's) costs of the application to be assessed.

4. That the application filed by the first defendant on 5 May 2011 be allowed.

5. That there be judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff in the claim.

6. That the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to both the application and the claim to be assessed.

7. That the application filed by the plaintiff on 29 April 2011 be dismissed.

8. That the applicant (plaintiff) pay the second defendant's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.

9. That all parties have liberty to apply in writing and make submissions for different costs order or a variation of any order as to costs.

10. Direct that any written submission for an order concerning costs be served on any other party and delivered to the Registry within 14 days.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services [2011] QSC 316

Most Recent Citation

Morris v St Vincent's Health Australia Ltd [2020] VSC 690

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Poland v Hedley [No 5]
[2023] WASC 294 Para 2

…020] VSC 690. [42] Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2004] NSWSC 582. [43] Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2011] QSC 316.…
Morris v St Vincent's Health Australia Ltd
[2020] VSC 690 Para 1

…Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1210, [32]–[40]; Chan v Sellwood [2009] NSWSC 1335, [44]–[47]; Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services and Anor [2011] QSC 316, [15]–[19]; Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295, [46]–[51]; Kostov v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 1822, [51]–[54].…
Enders v Erbas and Associates Pty Ltd
[2012] NSWDC 129 Para 1

…WAR 263; (1990) A Def R 50-095; S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 108; Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2011] QSC 316. In response to the submission that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to reply (s 30 (h)) and include that response in the publication, the…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia
[2010] HCA 28 Para 1

…he recent discussion of the tests and approach to be adopted by Courts when an application for summary judgment is made in Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118, in the reasons for judgment of French CJ & Gummow J at [24], page 131-2 and in the joint reasons of Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [53] page…
Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions Ltd
[2009] FCA 305 Para 1

…t defendant should be upheld[40]. [40] These considerations lead Lindgren J to conclude in Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 305 (1 April 2009), that a duty of care was not owed to applicants for credit. See [2009] FCA 305 at [373] - [418] particularly at [406] - [417].…
Cornwall v Rowan (No 3)
[2006] SASC 110

…in v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Cornwall & Ors v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 305 (1 April 2009) Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 Fancourt v Mer…
Cornwall v Rowan
[2004] SASC 384

…(1964) 112 CLR 125 Sattin v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Cornwall & Ors v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 305 (1 April 2009) Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 Fa…
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd
[2004] HCA 5

…0-1982) 154 CLR 87 Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507 Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 201 CLR 573 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366 Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR1 COUNSEL: Mr Walker appeared on his own behalf M.S. White for the first defendant R.N. Sheehy (solicitor) f…
Roberts v Bass
[2002] HCA 57

…Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 201 CLR 573 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366 Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR1 COUNSEL: Mr Walker appeared on his own behalf M.S. White for the first defendant R.N. Sheehy (solicitor) for the second defendant SOLICITORS…
Sullivan v Moody
[2001] HCA 59

…or Rail ways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Sattin v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Cornwall & Ors v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 305 (1 April 2009) Spencer v The Comm…
Gould v TCN Channel 9
[2000] NSWSC 707

…el Industries Inc v Commissioner for Rail ways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Sattin v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Cornwall & Ors v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 3…
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
[1997] HCA 25

…amation Act 2005 (NSW) , section 30, section 37 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), section 30, section 37 UCPR, rule 293 Headley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company (1997) 189 CLR 250 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Rail ways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Sattin v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 Goul…
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd
[1983] HCA 25 Para 1

…page 131-2 and in the joint reasons of Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [53] page 139. See further Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1980-1982) 154 CLR 87 and Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507.…
Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster
[1972] HCA 41 Para 1

…ennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [53] page 139. See further Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1980-1982) 154 CLR 87 and Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507.…
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)
[1964] HCA 69 Para 1

…in the further amended statement of claim.[28] [28] See generally the test proposed in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129-30. This was made clear to Mr Walker, who was disposed to defend the pleading on the ground that the facts asserted were true. See transcript…
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick
[2002] HCA 5610 Para 1

…ew South Wales. The publications are pleaded to have occurred in 2009 with the consequence that either the Qld Act or the NSW Act may apply.[57] [56] Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 201 CLR 573 at [26] and [44]. [57] Nothing turns on that. Both Acts are materially identical, they commenced on 1 January 2006 and apply to all publi…
[1964] AC 465
[1964] AC 465 Para 1

…, "vulnerability"[19], "reasonable forseeability"[20], "proximate cause"[21] and "assumption of responsibility coupled with known reliance"[22]. [16] [1964] AC 465. [17] Sappindeen & Vines, "Fleming's: The Law of Torts", Thomson Reuters, 2011 at [8.250]. [18] Paragraph 37. [19] Sub heading introducing paragraph…
[1917] AC 309
[1917] AC 309

…edits Ltd (1980-1982) 154 CLR 87 Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507 Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 201 CLR 573 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366 Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR1 COUNSEL: Mr Walker appeared on his own behal…
[1995] 2 AC 296
[1995] 2 AC 296

…[34] His Honour distinguished and doubted Spring v Guardian Assurance PLC [1995] 2 AC 296 which in turn applied the "Caparro Test." (See Caparro Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] 2AC 605) preferring instead the reasoning of New Zealand Courts.…
[1992] 2 NZLR 282
[1992] 2 NZLR 282

…Bell-Booth Group Ltd v Attorney General [1989] 3 NZLR 148; South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 282 and Balfour v Attorney General [1991] 1 NZLR 519. That approach has also been taken by Levine J in Sattin v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 3…
[1989] 3 NZLR 148
[1989] 3 NZLR 148

…Spring v Guardian Assurance PLC . Nevertheless we prefer the reasoning of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in Bell-Booth Group Ltd v Attorney General [1989] 3 NZLR 148; South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 282 and Balfour v Attorney General [1991] 1…
[1991] 1 NZLR 519
[1991] 1 NZLR 519

…NZLR 148; South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 282 and Balfour v Attorney General [1991] 1 NZLR 519. That approach has also been taken by Levine J in Sattin v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32. The approach taken by those cases is consisten…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Defamation Act 2005 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services & Anor [2011] QSC 316
PARTIES:	John Edmond WALKER (Plaintiff) and VEDA ADVANTAGE INFORMATION SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS LTD (ACN 000 602 862) (First Defendant) and DEBT PURCHASE AUSTRALIA (ACN 077 935 329) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	TS601 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	28 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	1 August 2011
JUDGE:	North J
ORDER:	1. That the application filed by the plaintiff on 3 March 2011 be dismissed. 2. That the amended claim and amended statement of claim filed 23 March 2011 and the further amended claim and further amended statement of claim filed 31 March 2011 be struck out. 3. That the applicant(plaintiff) pay the respondent's (first defendant's) costs of the application to be assessed. 4. That the application filed by the first defendant on 5 May 2011 be allowed. 5. That there be judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff in the claim. 6. That the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to both the application and the claim to be assessed. 7. That the application filed by the plaintiff on 29 April 2011 be dismissed. 8. That the applicant (plaintiff) pay the second defendant's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed. 9. That all parties have liberty to apply in writing and make submissions for different costs order or a variation of any order as to costs. 10. Direct that any written submission for an order concerning costs be served on any other party and delivered to the Registry within 14 days.
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - where plaintiff an applicant for credit - where defendant a credit reporting agency - whether duty of care owed - whether duty of care owed concerning defamatory publication - coherence of the law DEFAMATION - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - MALICE PRACTICE - PROCEDURE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - PLEADING - PARTICULARS Privacy Act 1988 (Cwth), section 11A, section 11B, section 18J. Defamation Act2005 (NSW), section 30, section 37 Defamation Act2005 (Qld), section 30, section 37 UCPR, rule 293 Headley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Company (1997) 189 CLR 250 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Sattin v National News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Cornwall & Ors v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services & Solutions Ltd [2009] FCA 305 (1 April 2009) Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1980-1982) 154 CLR 87 Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507 Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 201 CLR 573 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366 Roberts v Bass (2002)…