Legal Research
Cases
Assaf v Skalkos

Assaf v Skalkos

Case [2000] NSWSC 935 5 October 2000

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Assaf v Skalkos [2000] NSWSC 935 revised - 10/10/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 18374 of 1993

HEARING DATE(S): 26 May 2000
13 July 2000, and
Written Submissions

JUDGMENT DATE: 5 October 2000

PARTIES :

Joseph Assaf (First Plaintiff)
Ethnic Communications Pty Limited (Second Plaintiff)
v
Theodore Skalkos (First Defendant)
Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Carruthers AJ

COUNSEL : K A Rees (Plaintiffs)
J R McKenzie (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Plaintiffs)
Mr T Lazaropoulos (Defendants) apart from 13 July 2000 to 13 September 2000
Theodore Solomon & Partners (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - interest on verdicts - Costs - Indemnity costs - Calderbank letter of offer by plaintiffs including requirement of apology - offer deemed to be rejected by defendants - whether plaintiffs entitled to indemnity costs as from date of offer.

LEGISLATION CITED: Queensland District Court Rules, 1968, rule 118 (1).
Supreme Court Act, 1970, s 76.
Supreme Court Rules, 1970, Pt 22, Pt 52 r17.

CASES CITED: Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd (1991) 100 ALR 568.
AWA v Daniels (8 October 1992, unreported).
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1991) 22 NSWLR 1.
Beregold Pty Ltd v Mitsopoulos (Cole J, 20 November 1992, unreported).
Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93).
Dingle v Associated Newspapers [1964] AC 371.
Evans v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Unreported, Full Federal Court of Australia, Neaves, Miles and French JJ, 27 May 1994).
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131.
Horseshoe Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Murray Smith t/as South Coast Tile & Slate Company (Court of Appeal, unreported, 7 November 1995).
Humphries v TWT Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 693.
Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 242.
Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd v Richard Ellis (Western Australia) Pty Ltd (unreported, 29 August 1995).
Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No.2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 721.
Messiter v Hutchinson (1997) 10 NSWLR 525.
Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation (1996) 138 ALR 425.
Nobrega v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church (No. 2) [1999] NSWCA 133.
Risk Allah Bey v Johnstone (1868) 18 LT 620.
Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Sumitomo Australia Ltd [Fed.no.22/96].
Singleton v Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Limited (1991) 24 NSWLR 103.
State Authorities Superannuation Board v Property Estates (Queensland) Pty Ltd (Cole J, 8 February 1991, unreported).
Timms v Clift [1998] 2 QdR 100.
Trans Tasman Investments Pty Ltd v Donohue (Unreported, Court of Appeal 19 March 1991).
Williamson v Mig Aero Pty Ltd (Unreported, McLelland J, 15 March 1991).

DECISION: See paragraph 125

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
No 18374 of 1993

CARRUTHERS AJ

THURSDAY 5 OCTOBER 2000

BETWEEN

JOSEPH ASSAF
(First Plaintiff)

ETHNIC COMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED
(Second Plaintiff)

THEODORE SKALKOS
(First Defendant)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT - (On plaintiffs’ submissions on interest and costs)

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 Assaf v Skalkos

Details

AGLC: Assaf v Skalkos [2000] NSWSC 935
Case: [2000] NSWSC 935
Decision Date: 5 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Assaf v Skalkos, the plaintiff, Assaf, sued the defendant, Skalkos, for defamation. The dispute arose from alleged defamatory statements made by Skalkos about Assaf. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus of the litigation was on whether Assaf was entitled to indemnity costs from Skalkos, considering the circumstances surrounding a Calderbank offer made by Assaf.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of indemnity costs orders in defamation cases, particularly in relation to the timing of such orders when a Calderbank offer is made. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs from the date of the Calderbank offer, which included a requirement for an apology, and whether the offer was effectively rejected by the defendants.

The court concluded that the Calderbank offer, which required an apology from Skalkos, was indeed rejected by the defendants. The offer was considered to be a clear and unequivocal proposal to resolve the dispute, and its rejection entitled Assaf to indemnity costs from the date of the offer. The court emphasised that indemnity costs are a tool to encourage parties to make genuine settlement offers, and the requirement for an apology did not undermine the enforceability of the offer. As a result, the court awarded Assaf indemnity costs from the date the Calderbank offer was made.

The final orders of the court included an award of indemnity costs to Assaf from the date of the Calderbank offer, reflecting the court's determination that the defendants' rejection of the offer justified such an award.

Orders