Legal Research
Cases
Alex v Gridneff

Alex v Gridneff

Case [2013] NSWSC 2025 19 December 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alex v Gridneff [2013] NSWSC 2025
Hearing dates: 19 December 2013
Decision date: 19 December 2013
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Plaintiff's imputation struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs of the application

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - form of imputation - where act or condition allegedly attributed to the plaintiff by the matter complained of is expressed as "a possibility"
Cases Cited: Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWL 135
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia [2003] NSWSC 245
Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1983] 2 NSWLR 669
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: George Alex (plaintiff)
Ilya Gridneff (first defendant)
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (second defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
T Molomby (plaintiff)
L Barnett (second defendant)
Solicitors:
O'Brien Lawyers (plaintiff)
Banki Haddock Fiora (second defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/258747
Publication restriction: None

Judgment - ex tempore

HER HONOUR: This is an action for defamation arising out of the publication of an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald under the headline "The final moments of a deadly dispute".

The plaintiff has specified a single imputation alleged to arise in the natural and ordinary meaning of the matter complained of, as follows:

There is a possibility that [the plaintiff] is the person who arranged for the visit to Mr Steve Mitrovic's premises of a group of men carrying a firearm during which visit Mr Mitrovic was shot.

The defendant objects to the form of the pleading on the grounds that the imputation is bad in form as being embarrassing and that it is accordingly liable to be struck out.

The matter complained of describes an incident during which seven men allegedly attended the premises of Mr Zeljko "Steve" Mitrovic, a senior member of the Hells Angels. The article reports that within 20 minutes of their arrival, Mr Mitrovic was shot dead. It reports the development of a fierce discussion at the front of Mr Mitrovic's office, following which three of the seven followed Mr Mitrovic into his office. The article states, "Minutes later, one allegedly pulled a gun and shot Mr Mitrovic dead".

The article then reports the existence of a dispute between the deceased and a Mr Bacic, as to whom it is said that police want him for questioning over his dealings with the deceased.

The article proceeds in effect to pose or investigate other lines for investigation, including the following:

Mr Mitrovic is understood to have had several feuds with former business associates, including a former business partner George Alex - the director of Active Workforce, a scaffolding and labour hire company. Fairfax understands the dispute centres on a $400,000 Dural property the pair were going to buy, but the deal soured and became a legal dispute.

After an irrelevant reference to a comment made by another person, Mr Byrnes, the article concludes:

Mr Byrnes said he also knew Mr Alex, but no longer has…

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 Alex v Gridneff

Details

AGLC: Alex v Gridneff [2013] NSWSC 2025
Case: [2013] NSWSC 2025
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alex v Gridneff was a defamation case heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Alex, alleged that statements made by the defendant, Gridneff, defamed him. The dispute centred around whether the imputations made in the statements were defamatory. Specifically, Alex contended that Gridneff's statements implied that he was potentially involved in criminal activities, which was defamatory. The court was required to determine whether the imputations could be considered defamatory when they were expressed as possibilities rather than certainties.

The legal issues before the court included whether the form of imputations, which suggested that Alex might have been involved in criminal activities, could be considered defamatory. This involved assessing the meaning of the statements and whether they lowered Alex's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the possibility of criminal activity was sufficiently serious to be defamatory.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the possibility of criminal activity, as suggested by Gridneff's statements, was indeed defamatory. The court held that the imputations conveyed a serious suggestion that Alex might have been involved in criminal activities, which was defamatory. The court found that the possibility did not need to be expressed as a certainty for it to be defamatory, as the suggestion itself was damaging to Alex's reputation. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

The court's decision was based on the understanding that defamatory imputations do not require certainty; the possibility of wrongdoing can be defamatory if it is serious enough to harm the plaintiff's reputation. The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the defamatory statements made.

Orders