Durrand v Lawrence & Ors[2025] QDC 129

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Introduction

1. [1]
   Mr Durrand is self-represented.  He has filed an Originating Application seeking leave to file a claim for damages against the respondents for defamation along with other relief that is unnecessary to detail.  The respondents resist the application because Mr Durrand failed to give them compliant concerns notices before commencing the proceeding in accordance with sections 12A and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
2. [2]
   For the following reasons, the respondents succeed in their contention that compliant concerns notices were not given.  Mr Durrand cannot commence proceedings for defamation and the application must be dismissed.

Background

3. [3]
   Mr Durrand is a high school teacher at a state school in Far North Queensland.  These proceedings arise out of events connected to the school where he works.  The first and second respondents are teachers at the school.  The fifth respondent is their employer.  The third and fourth respondents were office holders in the school’s parents and citizens association. 
4. [4]
   In accordance with orders made by Fantin DCJ on 7 February 2025, Mr Durrand filed an affidavit annexing a draft Claim and Statement of Claim on which he intends to rely should leave be given.  That draft Statement of Claim is difficult to understand and does not adequately plead a cause of action in defamation.  However, in respect of the first, second and fifth respondents, it appears Mr Durrand’s concerns relate to a report made by the first and second respondents to a representative of the fifth respondent that alleged Mr Durrand had driven his car in a dangerous manner in the school drop off area on 14 September 2023.  In respect of the third and fourth respondents his concerns appear to relate to statements allegedly made by them in a P&C meeting on 21 November 2023 to the effect that Mr Durrand was rude and unprofessional in his dealings with them and as well, a subsequent complaint made by the third and fourth respondents to the school principal on 27 November 2023 that Mr Durrand had behaved in an intimidating, threatening and aggressive manner during the P&C meeting on 21 November 2023.
5. [5]
   At paragraph 28 of his draft Statement of Claim Mr Durrand alleges the various statements, reports and complaints to which he refers have caused him “severe harm” including: “forced time away from work due to mental health concerns”; “diagnosis of severe depression and anxiety”, “troubles in reality checking and stability of identity”; “severely high blood pressure”; “significant loss of standing in the local community”; “being shunned by former colleagues and some members of the school community”, and; “some members of the community and former colleagues displaying hatred, fear, despising [of him]”.  The draft Statement of Claim includes a claim for relief involving orders for the making of an apology in stipulated terms and the payment of $432,500.00 for “loss and harm caused”. 
6. [6]
   The matters Mr Durrand complains of in his draft pleading were raised with him as part of a workplace investigation into his conduct and behaviour by the Department of Education.  On 27 September 2024, the Regional Director of the Far Northern Region of the Department of Education wrote to Mr Durrand about the investigation and offered him an opportunity to respond to the allegations that had been made.  Mr Durrand provided his written response to the Department on 25 October 2024.
7. [7]
   On 11 October 2024, before providing his response to the Department, Mr Durrand purported to give each of the respondents a concerns notice under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) (“the Act”).  The Originating Application commencing these proceedings was subsequently filed by Mr Durrand on 11 December 2024. 

Contentions

8. [8]
   The respondents contend the various notices given by Mr Durrand do not meet the statutory requirements of a concerns notice under the Act because they:

   1. Do not identify the matters complained of with any particularity;
   2. Do not identify the imputations they are said to convey; and
   3. Do not identify or explain how Mr Durrand has suffered serious harm as a result.
9. [9]
   The respondents submit the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of a concerns notice has the consequence that Mr Durrand is precluded from commencing an action for defamation in accordance with s 12B of the Act. 
10. [10]
    Mr Durrand rejects the submission that his concerns notices are non-compliant with the requirements of the Act.  He submits the notices identify the matters complained of and the imputations they convey.  As to the issue of serious harm, he submits it is not a requirement of a compliant concerns notice that it particularises serious harm and that it is only necessary to identify harm.   

Concerns notice procedure

11. [11]
    Division 1 of Part 3 of the Act provides a procedure for the resolution of civil disputes about defamation without litigation using a “concerns notice.” It was introduced as part of a national defamation law reform process.  In Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991, Meagher J observed that:

“The purpose of the introduction of a mandatory concerns notice provision was to reduce the number of defamation actions which proceed to trial.  In that regard, the purpose of a concerns notice is twofold.  First, to provide the publisher with sufficient information to encourage the making of a reasonable offer of amends and secondly, to allow the aggrieved person to consider the threshold of serious harm which is required at an early stage.”^[1]

12. [12]
    The division applies if a person (the publisher) publishes matter that is or may be, defamatory of another person (the aggrieved person).  The aggrieved person may give the publisher a concerns notice.  Following receipt of the concerns notice, a publisher may make an “offer to make amends” in accordance with sections 13 to 15.   If an offer to make amends is accepted and performed, s 17 provides that it will prevent an action against the publisher in relation to the matter in question.  If it is not accepted, s 18 confers a substantive defence to an action for defamation if the offer was reasonable and other conditions of that section are satisfied.
13. [13]
    Section 12B provides that an aggrieved person cannot commence a defamation proceeding unless:

• The person has given the proposed defendant a concerns notice in respect of the matter concerned (s 12B(1)(a));
• the imputations relied upon in the proceeding are those particularised in the concerns notice (s 12B(1)(b)); and
• the applicable period of 28 days to make an offer of amends has elapsed (unless leave is given despite non-compliance) (s 12B(1)(c)).

14. [14]
    Section 12A provides a notice is a concerns notice for the purposes of the Act if it:

• is in writing (s 12A(1)(a)(i));
• specifies the location where the matter in question can be accessed (for example a webpage address) (s 12A(1)(a)(ii));
• informs the publisher of the defamatory imputations that the aggrieved person considers are or may be carried by the matters complained of (s 12A(1)(a)(iii)); and
• informs the publisher of the harm that the aggrieved person considers to be serious harm to the aggrieved person’s reputation caused, or likely to be caused, by the matters complained of (s 12A(1)(a)(iv)).

15. [15]
    The harm which the aggrieved person considers is serious harm caused or likely to be caused to their reputation, and which the publisher is to be informed of in a concerns notice, must be understood by reference to s 10A(1), which introduced a new element to a cause of action in defamation.  It provides:

It is an element (the serious harm element) of a cause of action for defamation that the publication of defamatory matter about a person has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the person.

16. [16]
    The element of serious harm is expressed using causative language: it must be established that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation.^[2]  In MG v PJ [2025] QCA 99 Flanagan JA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, distilled the following central principles relevant to a consideration of this new element after an extensive review of authorities:

    1. a plaintiff is required to prove the serious harm element as a fact;
    2. the serious harm element may be established by direct evidence, inference or both means, but it will never be presumed;
    3. the assessment of the serious harm element may depend on the inherent tendency of the words used, the impact on persons to whom these words were conveyed and the extent of publication, but regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case;
    4. reliance on the gravity of the imputation without more will not suffice; and
    5. the serious harm element is not evinced by mere injury to feelings.^[3]
17. [17]
    Whilst the concerns notice does not need to identify the serious harm caused with the same precision required by a formal pleading, to meet the requirement of s 12A(1)(a)(iv) it must do so in a manner sufficient to inform the publisher of the serious harm to reputation alleged in order that the publisher can consider whether and how they could offer to make amends.^[4]
18. [18]
    In accordance with s 12A(3), if a concerns notice fails to adequately particularise any of the information required by s 12A(1)(a), a publisher may give the aggrieved person a written notice requesting reasonable further particulars of the information concerned.  An aggrieved person must provide reasonable further particulars as specified in the written notice within 14 days (or any further period agreed by the publisher and aggrieved person) after being given the notice (s12A(4)).  An aggrieved person who fails to provide the further particulars specified in the notice within the applicable period is taken not to have given the publisher a concerns notice (s12A(5)). 

The notices

Notice given to the first and second respondents

19. [19]
    Mr Durrand accepts the notice he gave to each of the first and second respondents was framed in identical terms and contained the following text:

“RE: Concerns Notice: Defamation of Character and; Trespass, Detinue and Conversion

Defamation

It has recently come to my attention that you have, on many occasions conveyed false statements about my character, words and actions with respect to my temperament, criminality, professionalism and politeness.  This has been done in personal communications with supervisors of mine, community members, and others.  You are to cease and desist from any activity of this kind immediately.  You are hereby advised that these types of conveyances are henceforth knowingly done so.

One specific example of this is that you have indicated to [the principal of the school]^[5] and indirectly to [the regional director of the Department of Education], that I acted in a highly inappropriate and criminal way on 14 September last year.  It was claimed by you that intentionally drove my car towards you, using my car as a weapon and in a wholly inappropriate way wishing harm and injury.  This claim is not only untrue, it is, due to the circumstances you list, not capable of being true.  This information was then relayed to the Regional Director of Far North Queensland Department of Education, who then caused significant harm to me acting upon your dishonest and disingenuous claims.  You have also shared this disinformation with many members of staff and a few known members of the wider community.

You have communicated to persons including Mr [A] regarding the circumstances in which me and my family attend to tasks and community art projects including such statements to the effect of “…they created no end of drama while doing that…”  referring to a project in which me and my family completed at work, during our holidays and from which you were jealous of your lack of abilities in relation to this work.

This information was clearly published where an ordinary person would be able to identify me as the subject and the information is negative and defamatory, which has then caused me significant harm.

Trespass, Detinue and Conversion

You have claimed credit and authorship for artworks which you not only have no involvement in their production, you have no ability to comprehend any of the processes of such a work.  You were complicit in the trespass and detinue of this work, while conversion of it with the removal of evidence highlighting your lack of involvement.  This amounts to a wrongful interference with this property both in real and intellectual modes in removing items including my and my family’s names as creators and the title pane.  In this, you benefited in lying about your abilities and accomplishments to the wider community, including to a number of students who reported this.  In this, you are denying my family rightful possession of the ownership rights of this artwork, both real and intellectual.

I ask that you immediately cease and desist presenting these now knowingly false statements and that you seek to make amends and restitution for these by 31 October 2024.  Failure to do so can and will result in this matter being referred to the Queensland District Court for restitution of harm done in a tortious claim.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Durrand”

20. [20]
    Those parts of the notices under the heading “Trespass, Detinue and Conversion” have no present relevance and can be ignored.  To the extent the notices complain about any defamatory matter, I think they sufficiently identify the publications complained of, at least in so far as reference is made to a complaint to the school principal and to others in the wider school community about Mr Durrand’s driving on 14 September 2023.  As to these publications, counsel for the first, second and fifth respondents, Mr Clift, concedes the notices sufficiently identify two defamatory imputations.  First, that Mr Durrand “acted in a highly inappropriate and criminal way on 14 September last year”.  And secondly, that Mr Durrand intentionally drove his car towards the first respondent, using his car as a weapon and in a wholly inappropriate way, wishing harm and injury. 
21. [21]
    Mr Clift submits the primary issue with respect to the notices concerns compliance with s 12A(1)(a)(iv).  He submits the notices do not inform the first and second respondents of the harm Mr Durrand considers to be serious harm to his reputation caused by these publications.  Mr Durrand submits the notices provide sufficient information.  He says the following statements inform the respondents of the serious harm caused to his reputation:

“This information was then relayed to the Regional Director of Far North Queensland Department of Education, who then caused significant harm to me acting upon your dishonest and disingenuous claims.”

And

“This information was clearly published where an ordinary person would be able to identify me as the subject and the information is negative and defamatory, which has then caused me significant harm.”

22. [22]
    Mr Clift submits these statements amount to bare assertions of some undefined harm without providing any information sufficient to identify a causal link between the publication and serious harm to Mr Durrand’s reputation.  He submits this is not enough to satisfy the requirements of s 12A(1)(a)(iv).  I agree.  The notices provide no information about the nature of the harm said to be serious harm to reputation.  They do not identify how, why, when and where the harm has manifested.  Indeed, in the absence of any such information it is not clear the asserted harm is harm to Mr Durand’s reputation as opposed to some other type of harm like psychological injury or financial loss.  The lack of any detail or particularity about the nature of the harm means the first and second respondents cannot properly assess the case brought against each of them and contemplate framing an appropriate offer to make amends, thus undermining the legislative purpose of a concerns notice. 
23. [23]
    Mr Durand relies on the decision of Porter KC DCJ in Staged Plus Pty Ltd v Yummi Fruit Ice- Creamery Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] QDC 88 at [58] – [66] in support of a submission that s12A(1)(a)(iv) only requires harm, rather than serious harm, to be identified and not particularised, so that compliance can be achieved simply by asserting that harm has been caused.  I do not accept this argument.  His Honour’s interpretation of the subsection in Staged Plus diverges from the approach taken in other jurisdictions, where it has been suggested the validity of a notice depends upon the provision of a high level of particularity in relation to the serious harm to reputation that is alleged.^[6]  However, Mr Durrand’s submission misunderstands his Honour’s reasoning and approach to the construction of s 12A(1)(a)(iv) in any event.  On his Honour’s approach to the subsection, the obligation is to give information about an identifiable harm, not particulars of how that harm so identified may be considered serious harm.  Mr Durrand’s bare assertion of some undefined harm, described only as significant harm, does not do this.  In the face of this bare assertion of harm, Mr Durrand’s reliance on the approach taken by Porter KC DCJ in Staged Plus cannot assist him. 
24. [24]
    I find that s 12B(1)(a) has not been complied with and the notices sent to the first and second respondents are not concerns notices for the purposes of the Act. 

Notice given to the fifth respondent

25. [25]
    For the purposes of argument, Mr Clift concedes the notice Mr Durrand gave to the Regional Director of the Far North Region of the Department of Education was given to the fifth respondent.  That notice provides:

RE: Concerns Notice: Defamation of Character; and Breach of Privacy.

I write to you as the representative of the Education Department and the State of Queensland in its capacity to be liable for employees, specifically [the deputy principal of the school] acting in her official duty in the public service.  It is my understanding that [the deputy principal’s] and others’ words and actions now warrant the initiation of legal proceedings.

Defamation of character

It has come to my attention that [the deputy principal of the school] and others have, on many occasions conveyed false statements about my character, words and actions with respect to my temperament, criminality, professionalism and politeness.  This has been done in personal communications with supervisors of mine who have no right or business with, community members, and others.  She is to cease in desist from any activity of this kind immediately.  She is hereby advised that these types of conveyances are henceforth knowingly done so.

[The deputy principal of the school] has, during the course of this year provided many statements and insinuations about my conduct and the appropriateness of it, most notably led to your highly insulting letters of 2 February and 27 September.  [The deputy principal of the school] has presented many statements about email communications which has been labelled “inappropriate”, that I “…engaged in inappropriate email communications”; that I “…acted in an inappropriate manner towards [the principal of the school] during a meeting by speaking aggressively, making disparaging comments about [the principal of the school’s] conduct, slamming [my]…hands on a desk and pointing [my]... finger at her…” and that on “…an unknown date,… threatened to take legal action against [the senior support teacher of the school]”.  These claims are defamatory.  Further, it is fairly simple to prove these claims to be untrue from an objective standpoint.

This information was clearly published where an ordinary person would be able to identify me as the subject and the information is negative and defamatory, which has then caused me significant harm.

Privacy

[The deputy principal of the school], and/or another agent of the Education Department has breached privacy in forwarding emails and partial emails to a supervisor of mine without my consent.  It is immaterial that these emails came from my work email as they were not routine personal work information of a public sector employee and protected personal information under law including Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld).  The Queensland Office of the Information Commissioner has repeatedly provided that “information about officers’ emotions, team morale and incidents involving other people” is specifically protected information, as is opinions not about work, opinions about a public sector employee, how well an officer performs his/her duties.

[The deputy principal of the school], and/or another agent of the Education Department conveyed false statements to [the principal of the school], and indirectly to you, as Regional Director or Far North Queensland Department of Education,  and others with reckless indifference as to the falsity of those statements. [The principal of the school], community members, the Queensland Police and others have relied upon those statements to their and my detriment, resulting in serious harm.  This communication of private information and opinions out of context was a: willed act; which intruded upon my privacy; “which would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities”; which has caused me significant harm and “…which prevents or hinders [me]… from doing an act which [I] …am lawfully entitled to do”.

I ask that you immediately take measures such that this behaviour ceases and desists these now knowingly false statements and that you seek to make amends and restitution for these by 31 October 2024.  Failure to do so can and will result in this matter being referred to the Queensland District Court for restitution of harm done in a tortious claim.

Your sincerely,

Michael Durrand”

26. [26]
    Mr Clift submits the notice does not identify the defamatory publications or matters complained of in any cogent manner and thus does not sufficiently articulate the imputations said to be carried by any such publication and therefore, does not comply with the requirements of s 12A(1)(a)(iii).  In response, Mr Durrand submits his various references to the “false statements”; “insinuations”, and “personal communications” in the notice are sufficient to inform the fifth respondent of both the matters complained of and the imputations carried by them.  He says the notice sufficiently informs the fifth respondent of the following imputations: that he has acted inappropriately generally and in email communication, and that he has acted aggressively. 
27. [27]
    I do not accept the notice sufficiently informs the fifth respondent of the matters complained of, or the defamatory imputations carried.  It does not identify whether the matters relate to written or verbal communications, the date, time and place of any publication, the actual words used and to whom they were communicated.  In the absence of that information, the imputations carried by any defamatory publication is difficult to discern.  In any event, the imputations relied upon by Mr Durrand are not explicitly identified or particularised and, at best for Mr Durrand, could only ever cause trivial injury to his reputation.  They are not imputations of a grave kind.  In these circumstances, the imputations alone are most certainly insufficient to inform the respondent of the harm Mr Durrand considers was serious harm caused to his reputation. 
28. [28]
    Even if it were accepted the notice achieved compliance with the requirements of s 12A(1)(a)(iii) and sufficiently informed the fifth respondent of imputations, for the same reasons canvassed above in respect of the notices given to the first and second respondents, the notice does not comply with the requirements of s 12A(1)(a)(iv). 
29. [29]
    Mr Durrand relies on the following statements in the notice as sufficient to inform the respondents of the serious harm caused to his reputation:

“This information was clearly published where an ordinary person would be able to identify me as the subject and the information is negative and defamatory, which has then caused me significant harm.”

And

“[The principal of the school], community members, the Queensland Police and others have relied upon those statements to their and my detriment, resulting in serious harm.”

30. [30]
    Again, these statements are bare assertions of undefined harm with no identifiable causal link between any publication and serious harm to Mr Durrand’s reputation.  They are not sufficient to inform the fifth respondent of the harm Mr Durrand considers is serious harm to his reputation caused by the matters in question.  The imputations Mr Durrand submits are identified within the notice are also insufficient to inform the respondents of the serious harm alleged. 
31. [31]
    I find that s 12B(1)(a) has not been complied with and the notice sent to the fifth respondent is not a concerns notices for the purposes of the Act. 

Notices given to the third and fourth respondents

32. [32]
    The notice Mr Durrand gave to each of the third and fourth respondents was framed in identical terms:

“RE: Concerns Notice: Defamation of Character and Breach of Privacy

It has recently come to my attention that you have on many occasions in the last twelve months, conveyed false statements about my character, words and actions with respect to my temperament, criminality, professionalism and politeness.  This has also been done in personal communications with supervisors of mine who you have no right or business with, community members, and others.  You are to cease and desist from any activity of this kind immediately.  You are hereby advised that these types of conveyances are henceforth knowingly done so.

You have made dishonest claims to many persons including at [the school’s] Parents and Citizens meeting in November 2023 where your words consistently referred to me as being “rude and unprofessional all year” with no reference point save the false presentation of a routine email as being completely removed from what it was.  You have then conveyed this information further to [the principal of the school] and others with no legal reason.  You made many statements regarding my apparent criminality including me apparently stealing and that I apparently “couldn’t be bothered” returning communication while at the same time being fully aware that I was under orders to not speak with you.  This last claim amounts to criminal defamation as it can be proven that you knew this statement was dishonest prior to publishing it.  You have even made false statements to officers… at the [local]Police Station including Senior Constable [X] and Senior Sergeant [Y] regarding my words and actions.  This also amounts to a criminal action on your part.

This information was clearly published where in ordinary person would be able to identify me as the subject and the information is negative and defamatory, which has then caused me significant harm.

You have breached privacy in forwarding emails and partial emails to a supervisor of mine without my consent.  It is immaterial that these emails came from my work email as they were not routine personal work information of a public sector employee and are as such protected personal information under law including Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld).  The Queensland Office of the Information Commissioner has repeatedly provided that “information about officers’ emotions, team morale and incidents involving other people” is specifically protected private information, as is opinions not about work, opinions about a public sector employee, how well an officer performs his/her duties.

This also puts my supervisors in the dubious circumstance of potentially being an accessory after the fact to acts attempted by you, which I prevented, which would have amounted to fraud and theft as this is most likely the key motivator of your defamatory statements.

On a few known occasions, you have conveyed false statements to [the principal of the school], indirectly to [the regional director of the Department of Education], and others with reckless indifference as to the falsity of those statements.  [The principal of the school], [the regional director of the Department of Education], community members, the Queensland Police and others have relied upon those statements to their and my detriment, resulting in serious harm. This includes a description of me by [the regional director of the Department of Education] which I would not wish on the obscenest of persons.  This communication of private information and opinions out of context was a: willed act; which intruded upon my privacy; “which would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities”; which has caused me significant harm and “…which prevents or hinders [me]… from doing an act which [I]… am lawfully entitled to do”.

I find your conduct in communicating false and private information about me to my employer and others, claims of repeated phone calls, repeated and unsolicited emails and communications and attending my residence and not leaving upon being told that I am not able to speak with you boarders on stalking-type invasion of privacy as proscribed in Gross v Purvis in that it has the above elements as well as it harasses, and is designed to harass in a pretty and self-serving way.  I see this as in part motivated by a need to hide attempted stealing and fraud offences including the spending of monies belonging to the [school’s] P&C inappropriately and attempting to unlawfully change the name of the organisation and fraudulently doctor previous minutes to a representative of Westpac Bank in order to take more than $50,000 away from its rightful account.

I ask that you immediately cease and desist presenting these now knowingly false statements in that you seek to make amends and restitution for these by 31 October 2024.  Failure to do so can and will result in this matter being referred to the District Court of Queensland for restitution of harm done in a torturous claim.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Durrand”

33. [33]
    Counsel for the third and fourth respondents, Ms Bilic, submits the notices do not comply with the requirements of s12A(1)(a) because they do not identify the matters complained of with particularity and do not identify the relevant imputations said to be carried by those matters or the serious harm said to arise as a result.
34. [34]
    Mr Durand rejects the notices suffer from any of these deficiencies.  He submits the matters complained of are sufficiently identified as are the imputations arising from them.  He submits those imputation are as follows:  that he has acted inappropriately or with apparent criminality; that he has been rude and unprofessional and that he has behaved in an intimidating, threatening and aggressive manner. 
35. [35]
    In my view, the notices fail to inform the third and fourth respondents of the matters Mr Durand complains of in a meaningful way and the imputations contended for are not explicitly identified.  Whilst the notices do refer to a P&C meeting in November 2023, a meeting with the school principal and a meeting with police where defamatory statements may have been made, the information provided is not sufficient to identify the specifics of any such act and the imputations carried by them.  In the absence of that information, the third and fourth respondents are precluded from properly assessing the case brought against them and framing an offer to make amends related to the specific defamatory acts alleged against each of them.
36. [36]
    The notices also suffer the same deficiencies concerning serious harm as apply to the notices given to the other respondents.  They contain the same form of words and references to significant and serious harm as appear in the notice sent to the fifth respondent.  The notices state that:

“This information was clearly published where in ordinary person would be able to identify me as the subject and the information is negative and defamatory, which has then caused me significant harm.”

And

[The principal of the school], [the regional director of the Department of Education], community members, the Queensland Police and others have relied upon those statements to their and my detriment, resulting in serious harm.

37. [37]
    For the same reasons as apply to the notices sent to the first, second and fifth respondents, the notices sent to third and fourth respondents fail to comply with the requirements of s 12A(1)(a)(iv). That non-compliance is made worse by the lack of explicitly identified imputations relating to the publications allegedly made and against which the asserted harm might otherwise be assessed.
38. [38]
    There is a further basis upon which the notices given to the third and fourth respondents are non-compliant.  On 11 November 2024, the legal representatives for the third and fourth respondents gave Mr Durrand a further particulars notice pursuant to s 12A(3).  It asserted Mr Durrand had failed to provide necessary particulars enabling a meaningful response to his concerns notices.  Amongst other things it requested Mr Durrand provide information about the nature of the harm caused to him by the matters he had raised.  On 20 November 2024, Mr Durrand responded by email.  His email provided the following particulars of the harm alleged:

“The harm caused includes a severe loss of ability to enjoy life, loss of ability to work, severe depression and anxiety, a disconnection in stability of personality and reality checking and moving place of employment involving increased transport costs.” 

39. [39]
    Those particulars are not particulars of harm to reputation and do not constitute provision of reasonable further particulars in response to the notice given by the third and fourth respondents.  Therefore, in accordance with s 12A(5), Mr Durrand is taken not to have given the third and fourth respondents a concerns notice before commencing these proceedings. 
40. [40]
    I find that s 12B(1)(a) has not been complied with and the notices sent to the third and fourth respondents are not concerns notices for the purposes of the Act.  Further, I find, applying section 12A(5), that Mr Durrand has not given concerns notices to the third and fourth respondents because he failed to provide an adequate response to their request for reasonable further particulars.

The consequence of failing to give a valid concerns notice

41. [41]
    Mr Durrand argues a concerns notice is only required when an aggrieved person is asked to respond to a reasonable request for further and better particulars within 14 days.  He asserts that no such requests were made of him by the respondents and that therefore he is not precluded from commencing this proceeding.  I reject this argument.  It finds no support in the provisions of Division 1 of Part 3 of the Act. That the first, second, and fifth respondents did not give Mr Durrand a request for reasonable further particulars of his notices, does not affect their objective characterisation as non-compliant with s 12A.  Nor does it affect the requirement to give a compliant notice pursuant to s 12B(1)(a) before commencing proceedings.  In so far as Mr Durrand’s argument has any application to the third and fourth respondents, it also ignores the request for reasonable further particulars that was given in accordance with s 12A(3). 
42. [42]
    The clear words of s 12B of the Act restrict the commencement of a proceeding unless s 12B(1)(a) is complied with.  The notices given by Mr Durrand do not comply with those requirements.  The Act provides no power to grant leave to proceed despite a failure to give a compliant concerns notice.^[7]  It follows that this proceeding was improperly commenced against all five respondents.  The application must be dismissed as an abuse of process.^[8]  

Disposition

43. [43]
    I order as follows:

    1. The originating application is dismissed.
    2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs on the standard basis.