SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4)
Citation:
[2016] ACTCA 32
Hearing Date:
12 May 2016
DecisionDate:
10 August 2016
Reasons Date:
10 August 2016
Before:
Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Jagot JJ
Decision:
1. The appeal and the cross-appeal be dismissed.
2. The parties pay their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Catchwords:
DEFAMATION – Statements amounting to defamation – whether statements published online capable of bearing defamatory meaning – whether plaintiff is identifiable in publications – whether publications amount to mere abuse – fair comment – privilege – whether comments relate to matters of public interest – whether publications trivial – damages – whether award of aggravated damages appropriate – whether award of damages appropriate – articulation of separate basis of award
Legislation Cited:
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 118(2), 134, 136, 139A, 139B, 139D, 139E, 139H, 139J
Anthony Scott Brisciani (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Gabriella Jean Piscioneri (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
Representation:
Counsel
Mr S D Malcolmson (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Self-represented (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
Solicitors
Self-represented (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Self-represented (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
File Number:
ACTCA 26 of…
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 Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32
Case
[2016] ACTCA 32
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) concerned a defamation proceeding heard by Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Jagot JJ. The dispute involved allegations of defamatory statements published online. The central question before the court was whether these online publications were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, whether the plaintiff was identifiable within those publications, and whether the publications constituted mere abuse rather than defamation. The court also considered defences of fair comment and privilege, specifically whether the comments related to matters of public interest and whether the publications were trivial. Finally, the court addressed issues relating to damages, including the appropriateness of aggravated damages and the articulation of separate bases for any award of damages.
The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the online publications and their potential to convey a defamatory imputation to ordinary reasonable readers. It applied established principles of defamation law, including the requirement for a statement to be defamatory of the plaintiff, the test for identification, and the distinction between defamatory statements and mere vulgar abuse. The court also examined the elements of the defences of fair comment and privilege, assessing whether the alleged comments met the criteria for public interest and whether the publications were of a trivial nature that would not warrant legal recourse. The assessment of damages involved considering the impact of the publications on the plaintiff's reputation and the potential for aggravated damages based on the defendant's conduct.
Ultimately, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with the parties ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal and the cross-appeal be dismissed.
2. The parties pay their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.