CITATION: Cavasinni v Camenzuli [2009] NSWDC 159 HEARING DATE(S): 26 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
26 June 2009EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 26 June 2009 JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ DECISION: (1) Defendants’ objections to form and capacity of the plaintiff’s imputations dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff file an Amended Statement of Claim correcting typing errors and identifying places of publication by 4pm 2 July 2009.
(3) These proceedings stood over to the Defamation List for further directions at 9:00am on Friday 3 July.
(4) The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of this application.
(5) No order as to the costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the Statement of Claim.CATCHWORDS: TORT - defamation - imputations - form and capacity LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28 and 28.2CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Bass v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 270
Bass v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 34
Buckley v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 102
Coates v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 292
David v Abdishou [2007] NSWSC 1195
Dennis v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWCA 37
Dix Gardner Pty Ltd v Strathfield Municipal Council [2003] NSWSC 597
Dobson v Macquarie Radio Network Ltd [2007] NSWSC 718
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Fakhoury v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 561
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186
Gillespie v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 553
Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1118
Hanneybel v Uniflex (Australia) Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 349
Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 682
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake; David Syme & Co v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gacic (2007) 230 CLR 291
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock [2007] NSWCA 364
Mahommed v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 213
Malcolm v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-915; [2007] NSWCA 254
Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419
Piggins v Denton [2006] NSWSC 954
SMEC Holdings v Boniface [2007] NSWSC 1402
Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1983] 2 NSWLR 669
Viney v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1273
Waterhouse v David Syme & Co Ltd [2000] NSWSC 817PARTIES: Plaintiff: Vittorio Cavasinni
First Defendant: Charles Camenzuli
Second Defendant: Therese CamenzuliFILE NUMBER(S): 1788 of 2009 COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Mr R Potter
Defendants: Ms S ChrysanthouSOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Antunes Lawyers and Advocates
Defendants: UBK Lawyers
Judgment
[1] The plaintiff commenced proceedings for defamation by Statement of Claim filed on 29 April 2009 concerning three publications alleged to have been published on the website These matters are attached as PDF files in a…
Continue reading Cavasinni v Camenzuli
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cavasinni v Camenzuli [2009] NSWDC 159
- Case
- [2009] NSWDC 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cavasinni v Camenzuli was heard in a court where the plaintiff sought to address defamation claims against the defendants. The plaintiff, Cavasinni, alleged that defamatory statements had been made about him by the defendants, Camenzuli and others. The primary focus of the case was to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were properly formulated and whether they identified the defamatory statements with sufficient specificity.
The court was tasked with examining whether the plaintiff's allegations of defamation were adequately detailed in form and capacity. This involved scrutinising the Statement of Claim to ensure that it contained specific details regarding the defamatory imputations, the places of publication, and the individuals responsible for the publication. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the plaintiff's claims complied with procedural requirements and whether the document was clear enough to allow the defendants to adequately respond.
In its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim was deficient in certain respects, primarily due to typing errors and insufficient details regarding the places of publication. However, the court ruled that these deficiencies did not render the claims invalid. The court dismissed the defendants' objections regarding the form and capacity of the plaintiff's imputations. It directed the plaintiff to file an Amended Statement of Claim by a specified date to correct the errors and provide the necessary details. The proceedings were then stood over to allow for further directions, with the defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with this application.
In summary, the court's orders mandated the plaintiff to amend their Statement of Claim, while also dismissing the defendants' objections concerning the form and capacity of the defamation claims. The proceedings were set for further direction, ensuring that the plaintiff's claims could be properly addressed in the subsequent stages of the litigation.
The court was tasked with examining whether the plaintiff's allegations of defamation were adequately detailed in form and capacity. This involved scrutinising the Statement of Claim to ensure that it contained specific details regarding the defamatory imputations, the places of publication, and the individuals responsible for the publication. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the plaintiff's claims complied with procedural requirements and whether the document was clear enough to allow the defendants to adequately respond.
In its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim was deficient in certain respects, primarily due to typing errors and insufficient details regarding the places of publication. However, the court ruled that these deficiencies did not render the claims invalid. The court dismissed the defendants' objections regarding the form and capacity of the plaintiff's imputations. It directed the plaintiff to file an Amended Statement of Claim by a specified date to correct the errors and provide the necessary details. The proceedings were then stood over to allow for further directions, with the defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with this application.
In summary, the court's orders mandated the plaintiff to amend their Statement of Claim, while also dismissing the defendants' objections concerning the form and capacity of the defamation claims. The proceedings were set for further direction, ensuring that the plaintiff's claims could be properly addressed in the subsequent stages of the litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Defendants' objections to form and capacity of the plaintiff's imputations dismissed. (2) Plaintiff file an Amended Statement of Claim correcting typing errors and identifying places of publication by 4pm 2 July 2009. (3) These proceedings stood over to the Defamation List for further directions at 9:00am on Friday 3 July. (4) The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of this application. (5) No order as to the costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the Statement of Claim.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.