Chehade v Mihailuk

The plaintiff in Chehade v Mihailuk brought an action for defamation against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made defamatory statements about him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant applied for leave to re-open the case to call further evidence after the judgment was reserved. This application arose after the defendant obtained new evidence which was not previously available to them. Additionally, a witness called by the plaintiff admitted to giving perjured evidence at trial.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the defendant made the defamatory statements and whether the defendant should be granted leave to re-open the case to call further evidence. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove that the defendant made the defamatory statements. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant was entitled to re-open the case to call further evidence as the evidence was not previously available to them. The court also noted that the perjured evidence given by the plaintiff’s witness undermined the reliability of the plaintiff’s case.

The court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for general and aggravated damages. The court ordered that the verdict and judgment be for the defendant and that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. The court also ordered that the exhibits may be returned and that liberty be given to apply on 7 days notice if further or other orders are required.

The court’s decision in Chehade v Mihailuk highlights the importance of the reliability of evidence in defamation cases. The court found that the plaintiff’s case was undermined by the perjured evidence given by their witness. Furthermore, the court recognised the need for defendants to be given an opportunity to call further evidence where such evidence was not previously available to them. This case serves as a reminder to litigants of the importance of ensuring that the evidence presented in court is reliable and that all available evidence is presented to the court.