Webster v Coles Myer Ltd; Thompson v Coles Myer Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, two plaintiffs, Karl Webster and Steward James Thompson, brought claims against Coles Myer Limited, a large retail corporation, for damages arising from incidents at two of its stores. The plaintiffs alleged they were falsely imprisoned by the police after being apprehended based on accusations by store managers, and they also claimed defamation due to the publication of certain matters by Coles Myer's employees. The court had to determine the liability of Coles Myer under the tort of false imprisonment and defamation, including the elements required to establish these claims and the principles of vicarious liability.

The primary legal issues involved whether false imprisonment required physical restraint and if Coles Myer could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its store managers. Similarly, the defamation claims required establishing if Coles Myer's employees published defamatory matters, whether Coles Myer could be held vicariously liable, and whether the communications were protected by qualified privilege. The court also considered the nature and extent of damages, including whether there was overlap between the heads of damage for defamation and false imprisonment, and whether exemplary damages were appropriate for false imprisonment.

The court held that Coles Myer was liable for false imprisonment because the actions of its employees led to the plaintiffs' restraint by the police, fulfilling the "but for" test for causation. It was determined that Coles Myer could be vicariously liable for the false imprisonment as it was the store managers' actions that caused the restraint. For defamation, the court found that Coles Myer's employees did publish the defamatory matters, and Coles Myer was vicariously liable. The imputations conveyed were defamatory, but the court found that the communications were made on an occasion protected by qualified privilege, mitigating the liability for defamation. The court awarded damages to both plaintiffs, considering both compensatory and special damages, but denied exemplary damages for false imprisonment.

The court ordered judgment in favour of Karl Webster for $80,267.00 and Steward James Thompson for $253,949.16. The plaintiffs were granted liberty to apply for interest and costs, and the exhibits were retained for 28 days.