Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions Limited [2009] FCA 305

Dale v Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions Limited [2009] FCA 305

All claims in defamation and negligence failed. In defamation, publication to a human mind was not proved except in a limited number of instances; qualified privilege was established for all relevant publications. In negligence, Veda as credit reporting agency owed at most a duty to ensure that its systems accurately recorded and communicated data provided by credit providers, not a duty to ensure underlying factual accuracy, given statutory scheme and allocation of responsibility under the Privacy Act. On the facts, only limited inaccuracies were established and, even then, no breach of duty by Veda was found. All proceedings dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Shane Dale; Applicant: Cindy Adams; Applicant: Eddie Fisher; Applicant: Jye Marker; Applicant: Tim McGary; Applicant: Dianne Shields; Applicant: Robert Strange; Applicant: Trevor Taylor; Applicant: Aaron Tyndall; First Respondent: Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions Limited; Second Respondent: The Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment at Trial Concerning Liability Only
Outcome
Applications dismissed; costs ordered against applicants (except on constitutional issue)
Legal Topics
Credit Reporting, Duty of Care, Qualified Privilege, Publication in Defamation, Inaccurate Credit Reports, Limitation Periods, Section 109 Inconsistency, Liability of Credit Reporting Agencies
Defamation Negligence Privacy Law Constitutional Law Credit Reporting Duty of Care Qualified Privilege Publication in Defamation +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Dale

Applicant

Cindy Adams

Applicant

Eddie Fisher

Applicant

Jye Marker

Applicant

Tim McGary

Applicant

Dianne Shields

Applicant

Robert Strange

Applicant

Trevor Taylor

Applicant

Aaron Tyndall

Applicant

Veda Advantage Information Services and Solutions Limited

First Respondent

The Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment at Trial Concerning Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Veda as credit reporting agency published defamatory material to credit providers
  2. 2 Whether publication occurred to a human mind (publication by whom and to whom)
  3. 3 Whether Veda owed a duty of care in negligence to applicants regarding accuracy of reports

Ratio Decidendi

All claims in defamation and negligence failed. In defamation, publication to a human mind was not proved except in a limited number of instances; qualified privilege was established for all relevant publications. In negligence, Veda as credit reporting agency owed at most a duty to ensure that its systems accurately recorded and communicated data provided by credit providers, not a duty to ensure underlying factual accuracy, given statutory scheme and allocation of responsibility under the Privacy Act. On the facts, only limited inaccuracies were established and, even then, no breach of duty by Veda was found. All proceedings dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; costs ordered against applicants (except on constitutional issue)

Orders

  • Each proceeding be dismissed.
  • Applicants to pay the first respondent's costs except its costs on the constitutional issue.