Amanatidis v Darmos - [2011] VSC 163

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 08893 of 2009

ARISTOTELIS AMANATIDIS & HELEN AMANATIDIS	Plaintiffs
v
ANASTASIA DARMOS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	SIFRIS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 and 3 March 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Amanatidis & Anor v Darmos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 163

---

DEFAMATION – Publication – Anonymous defamatory letters – Defendant not author of letters – Whether defendant otherwise involved in publication.

DEFAMATION – Damages – Assessment of damages where publication very limited – Family dispute - Aggravated damages – Whether counsel’s conduct aggravated damage suffered by plaintiffs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr. S K Wilson QC	Herbert Geer
Mr. K Bracken
For the Defendant	Mr. P Darmos	Kiatos & Co

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant published two letters containing defamatory statements about each of them.

The defendant denies publication of the two letters. The defendant does not positively assert any defence - there is no plea of justification or truth. In fact, the defence contains only bare denials.

Accordingly, the critical issue in this case is whether the defendant published the two letters as alleged. It is clear that the words complained of are defamatory and there was little argument about this during the trial. Consequently, if publication is established, damage to the plaintiffs will be presumed and the remaining issue will be the quantification of damages.

Background

The Family Dispute

Constantinos (Kostas) Amanatidis (“the deceased”) died on 5 March 2008.

The first plaintiff (“Teli”) is a son of the deceased. The second plaintiff (“Helen”) is married to Teli. The defendant (“Anastasia”) is the daughter of the deceased and Teli’s sister. There are four other children of the deceased, all of whom are adults.

The family is in dispute over the estate of the deceased. There are accusations and counter accusations and the matter will presumably be determined by the Court at some later stage, if the siblings are unable to resolve their difficulties.[1] The acrimonious dispute in relation to the estate commenced shortly after the death of the deceased. Although it is not relevant to the disposition of this case, it does provide some background.

The Letters

[1]The Court has recently been informed by the solicitor for the plaintiffs that the other proceedings have now settled.

The plaintiffs allege that on or about 14 September 2008, Anastasia delivered, or caused to be delivered, a letter to Mr. George Theodorou, Helen’s father (“the first letter”).

The plaintiffs further allege that in or around November 2008, Anastasia delivered another letter to Father Alexandros Korlos (“the second letter”). Father Korlos is a Reverend of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. He is affiliated with the Parish of St Nicholas in Yarraville in the State of Victoria.

Both letters are written in Greek and are not dated or signed. When translated into English, the letters are identical for all intents 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 Amanatidis v Darmos

Details

AGLC: Amanatidis v Darmos [2011] VSC 163
Case: [2011] VSC 163
Decision Date: 29 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Amanatidis v Darmos, the plaintiffs sought damages for defamation caused by anonymous letters sent to relatives and neighbours. The defendants, Darmos, were not the authors of the letters but were alleged to have been involved in their publication. The court had to determine whether Darmos could be held liable for the defamatory content despite not being the authors. The legal issues involved assessing whether Darmos' involvement in the distribution of the letters constituted publication for which they could be held liable and determining the appropriate level of damages given the limited scope of publication and the context of a family dispute.

The court held that the involvement of Darmos in the distribution of the defamatory letters constituted publication, thus making them liable. Regarding damages, the court found that the limited scope of publication and the context of a family dispute warranted a reduced assessment of general damages. However, the court awarded aggravated damages due to the distress caused by the defamatory content and the circumstances of its publication. The plaintiffs' counsel's conduct was examined to determine if it had further aggravated the damage suffered, and the court concluded that it had not.

The court ordered that the defendants were liable for the defamatory publication and awarded the plaintiffs damages, including a sum for aggravated damages. The specific amount of damages was not detailed in the summary, but the court's decision highlighted the importance of context in defamation cases, particularly concerning the scope of publication and the nature of the relationship between the parties involved. The final orders included a declaration of liability for defamation and a monetary award for damages.

Orders