Anand v Armstrong (No 2) - [2020] SADC 73

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
ANAND & ANOR v ARMSTRONG & ANOR (NO 2)
[2020] SADC 73
Reasons for Decision of Her Honour Judge Schammer
16 June 2020
DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - COSTS
The plaintiffs pursued a claim against the defendants in defamation and for interference in contractual relations.
On 31 March 2020, I ordered judgment in favour of the first plaintiff as against the defendants in the sum of $50,000, comprising $40,000 for general damages and $10,000 for aggravated damages for defamation. The second plaintiff’s action was dismissed.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the claims made for specified economic loss as a result of either the defamation or the alleged interference in contractual relations.
The plaintiffs seek an order for pre-judgment interest at a rate of 4% per annum for the period from the date of the first publication until the date of judgment.
In addition, the plaintiffs seek an order for their costs of action on an indemnity basis either pursuant to s 38(2)(a) Defamation Act 2005 (SA), on the basis that the defendants unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to a settlement offer proposed by the plaintiffs, or in the exercise of my discretion having regard to the defendants’ conduct both before and during the proceedings.
Orders:
1. That in addition to the judgment sum, the defendants are to pay the first plaintiff the sum of $5,120 by way of pre-judgment interest.
2. Each party is to bear its own costs incurred of and incidental to FDN 13, and the costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the first trial.
3. Each party is to bear its own costs incurred of and incidental to FDN 19.
4. Otherwise, the defendants are to pay the first plaintiff’s costs of action on a party/party basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
5. No order as to the second plaintiff’s costs of action.
National Health Act 1953 ; Defamation Act 2005 ss 14, 35, 38; Copyright Act 1968 ; District Court Act 1991 s 42, referred to.
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333; Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) (Cornes) [2011] SASC 141; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131; Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419; Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 946; Macks v Viscariello (No 2) [2018] SASCFC 106; Excelsior Land Holdings Pty Ltd v Alan Sheppard Constructions Pty Ltd [2012] SASCFC 119; Parabanks Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v City of Salisbury (No 2) [2013] SASC 204; Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229; Lesses v Maras (No 3) [2017] SASCFC 154; Mercorella v Ellis (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Debelle J, 15 August 1994); Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd v Paley Properties Pty Ltd (2014) 120 SASR 532, considered.

ANAND & ANOR v ARMSTRONG & ANOR (NO 2)
[2020] SADC…

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 Anand v Armstrong (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Anand v Armstrong (No 2) [2020] SADC 73
Case: [2020] SADC 73
Decision Date: 16 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Anand v Armstrong (No 2) was heard by Justice Bromberg. The dispute between the parties, Mr Anand and Ms Armstrong, centres on allegations of defamation. The matter concerns the costs associated with the litigation, specifically the decision to award costs to the plaintiff under section 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings, which would affect the award of costs. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's conduct warranted a costs penalty, whereas the plaintiff maintained that their actions were reasonable and justified. The court needed to examine the proportionality of the plaintiff's conduct, the degree to which it departed from what was reasonable, and whether the plaintiff's actions had any justifiable basis.

Justice Bromberg held that the plaintiff had acted unreasonably, particularly in the persistence of pursuing a claim that was not supported by any evidence. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct was vexatious and oppressive, leading to the award of costs to the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of the conduct of litigation being proportionate and reasonable, and that the plaintiff's actions in this case fell short of that standard. The final orders included an award of costs to the defendant, reflecting the court's determination that the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable and unjustified.

Orders