Legal Research
Cases
Balzola v Passas

Balzola v Passas

Case [2020] NSWSC 896 31 July 2020

Defamation

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Balzola v Passas [2020] NSWSC 896
Hearing dates: 29; 30 April 2019; 1; 3; 14 May 2019
Date of orders: 31 July 2020
Decision date: 31 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
See paragraph 256

Catchwords:
DEFAMATION – oral defamatory statement – defences – common law qualified privilege – reply to attack – remedies – aggravated damages – compensatory damages – damage to reputation – injury to feelings – grapevine effect

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 100
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 7, 30, 34, 35
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 140
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900 (NSW) s 32

Cases Cited:
Balzola v Passas [2019] NSWSC 1724
Bashford v Information Australia Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; [2004] HCA 5
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 31
Cerutti v Crestside [2016] 1 Qd R 89; [2014] QCA 33
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519; [1998] HCA 37
Coles Supermarkets Australia Ltd v Clarke [2013] NSWCA 272
Feo v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd [1999] 3 VR 417; [1999] VSCA 180
Howden v “Truth” and “Sportsman” Limited & Anor (1937) 58 CLR 416; [1937] HCA 74
Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219
Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1KB 461
Trkulja v Google LLC (2018) 263 CLR 149; [2018] HCA 25
Umeyor v Ibe [2016] EWHC 862
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118; [1966] HCA 40

Texts Cited:
John G Fleming, Law of Torts (8th ed, 1992, Law Book Company)
Richard Parkes QC et al, Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th ed, 2017, Sweet and Maxwell)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Balzola (Plaintiff)
Julie Passas (First Defendant)
Anthony Raciti (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr R Rasmussen (Plaintiff)
Mr N Kirby (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Stewart Cuddy & Mokkler (Plaintiff)
Otto Stichter & Associates (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/86708

Judgment

This action for damages for defamation arises out of the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Summer Hill State Electoral Conference (SEC) of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party conducted on 29 March 2016. The plaintiff, Mr Balzola, was not a member of the SEC or any branch of the Liberal Party within the Summer Hill Electorate. He was a member and President of the Five Dock branch. But he had been invited to the AGM by his friend, Joceline Khachan, who aspired to elected office at the SEC. Ms Khachan had asked Mr Balzola to attend as a scrutineer.
The first defendant, Mrs Passas: has been a member of the Liberal Party since 1994; was secretary of the Ashfield Branch within the Summer Hill Electorate; represented the Liberal Party as a local government councillor; and was also standing for office at the AGM.

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 Balzola v Passas

Details

AGLC: Balzola v Passas [2020] NSWSC 896
Case: [2020] NSWSC 896
Decision Date: 31 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Balzola v Passas involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Balzola, against the defendant, Passas. The dispute centred around an oral defamatory statement made by Passas about Balzola to a third party, which Balzola claimed had caused damage to his reputation and feelings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court included whether the statement made by Passas was defamatory and, if so, whether Passas could rely on the defence of common law qualified privilege. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate remedies for Balzola, including whether aggravated damages, compensatory damages, and damages for injury to feelings were warranted. The court also had to consider the so-called "grapevine effect" in assessing the impact of the defamatory statement on Balzola's reputation.

The court held that the statement made by Passas was indeed defamatory. Regarding the defence of qualified privilege, the court found that Passas' statement was not made in circumstances that warranted such a defence. The court emphasised the importance of the context and the nature of the communication in determining whether a qualified privilege applied. The court awarded Balzola damages, including aggravated damages for the manner in which the defamatory statement was made, and compensatory damages for the damage to his reputation. The court also awarded damages for injury to feelings, recognising the personal impact of the defamatory statement on Balzola. The court considered the "grapevine effect" in assessing the overall harm caused to Balzola's reputation.

The final orders included a declaration that the statement made by Passas was defamatory, a finding that the defence of qualified privilege did not apply, and an award of damages to Balzola. The court awarded aggravated damages, compensatory damages for damage to reputation, and damages for injury to feelings. The precise amounts awarded were determined based on the evidence presented regarding the harm caused to Balzola.

Orders