Alex v Gridneff (No 2) - [2014] NSWSC 181

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alex v Gridneff (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 181
Hearing dates: 4 March 2014
Decision date: 04 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1. Application to strike out imputation dismissed.
2. The second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - whether imputation capable of arising - reasonable grounds for suspecting - no question of principle.
Cases Cited: - Alex v Gridneff [2013] NSWSC 2025
- Griffith v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 300
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: George Alex (Plaintiff)
Ilya Gridneff (First Defendant)
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
T. Molomby SC (Plaintiff)
Ms L Barnett (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
O'Brien Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Banki Haddock Fiora (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/258747

ex tempore Judgment

The second defendant to these proceedings, Fairfax Publications Pty Limited ("Fairfax") seeks to strike out the imputation which is pleaded in paragraph 6 of the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), 14.28.

Two matters are raised in support of that application. First, it is said that the imputation pleaded is not capable of arising from the matter complained of. Second, it is submitted that in a material respect one aspect of the imputation is so ambiguous that the imputation in its current form cannot stand. To address this it is necessary to briefly describe the article in question.

The article was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on or about 17 January 2013. It was entitled "Final moments of a deadly dispute". It described the events surrounding the shooting of the late Zeljko "Steve" Mitrovic.

The second paragraph of the article states that the shooting of Mr Mitrovic was "allegedly the climax of days of heated arguments between Mr Mitrovic and a business associate, Frank Bacic". The article then describes how seven men confronted Mr Mitrovic at the front of his business premises. The article states that there was a fierce discussion that got out of hand and that Mr Mitrovic left that part of his office and went to another part believing the row was over. The article says he was followed by three men one of whom allegedly pulled a gun and shot him dead and shot a co-worker in the arm.

In relation to the position of Mr Bacic, the article recounts that Fairfax "understands the dispute was over an outstanding debt" and recounts the fact that Mr Bacic was wanted for questioning over his dealings with Mr Mitrovic. This part of the article then states "police are not alleging Mr Bacic was the shooter or ordered the attack". The article then cites various rumours concerning the arrangements between Mr Bacic and Mr Mitrovic. The last part of the article then broadens the horizon of suspects. It states:

"Mr Mitrovic is understood to have several feuds with former business associates including a former business partner George Alex - the director of Active Workforce, a scaffolding and…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Alex v Gridneff (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 181
Case: [2014] NSWSC 181
Decision Date: 04 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Alex v Gridneff (No 2) were Alex, the plaintiff, and Gridneff, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was centred on defamation, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made defamatory statements about them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the imputations alleged by the plaintiff were capable of arising from the words used by the defendant and if the plaintiff had reasonable grounds for suspecting the defendant.

The legal issues before the court included whether the words used by the defendant were capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the plaintiff had reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant of making such defamatory statements. The court considered whether these issues raised any questions of principle that needed to be determined by a higher court. In this instance, the court found that no such questions of principle existed.

The court ruled that the imputations alleged by the plaintiff were indeed capable of arising from the words used by the defendant. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff had reasonable grounds for suspecting the defendant of making such defamatory statements. The court found that the plaintiff's suspicion was based on the circumstances surrounding the publication of the alleged defamatory words. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the case was to proceed to trial on the issue of damages. The court's decision emphasised that the questions raised in this appeal did not involve any novel or significant questions of principle that would require the intervention of a higher court.

Orders