Cripps v Vakras - [2014] VSC 110

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2011 1484

ROBERT RAYMOND CRIPPS & ANOR	Plaintiffs
v
DEMETRIOS VAKRAS & ANOR	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	KYROU J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2014
DATE OF RULING:	25 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cripps v Vakras
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 110

---

DEFAMATION — Article published on the internet — Article contained a hyperlink to another article on the same website — Both articles written by the first defendant — Hyperlinked article discussed a phrase used in the first article — Plaintiffs sued in respect of the first article — Whether first defendant can treat the articles as a single composite publication for the purposes of ascertaining the meaning of the matter complained of and supporting the defences of fair comment and honest opinion — The articles held to be separate publications.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr C J Dibb	Efron & Associates
For the Defendants	Mr D Gilbertson SC with Ms S Porter	Media Arts Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

The plaintiffs have sued the defendants in defamation in respect of three articles that were published on the internet. The first two articles were published by the first defendant, Mr Demetrios Vakras, on his website The third article was published by the second defendant, Ms Lee-Anne Raymond, on her website and is not relevant to this ruling.

Mr Vakras’ second article is the same as the first article, save that it contains additional text under a new heading ‘Addendum 2 April 2011’. The contents of the addendum are not relevant to this ruling. Accordingly, I will refer solely to the first article, which for convenience I will describe as the ‘First Article’.

The First Article can be accessed via the home page of Mr Vakras’ website or directly on the webpage

The subject matter of the First Article is the defendants’ unhappy experience in exhibiting their artwork at the Guildford Lane Gallery (‘Gallery’) in mid-2009. At that time, the Gallery was operated by the second plaintiff, Redleg Museum Services Pty Ltd (‘Redleg’). The first plaintiff, Mr Robert Cripps, is the sole director and company secretary of Redleg.

The First Article, when printed, extends over seven pages and comprises text, photographs, images and ‘screen shots’ of internet items which are presented in framed ‘boxes’. It also contains seven hyperlinks embedded in the text.[1]
[1]Where the same hyperlink appears more than once, I have treated it as a single hyperlink.

The First Article is very critical of Mr Cripps. It includes the following statement:

Cripps is a self-confessed racist [the new-left Nazis]. He is a manifestation of the new-left who have adopted the sentiments Hitler expressed in his Mein Kampf, but who believe that, though theirs and Hitler’s sentiments are the same, their racism is a ‘justifiable’ one [new-left Nazis]

The above statement contains two hyperlinks, namely the text in brackets. By…

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 Cripps v Vakras

Details

AGLC: Cripps v Vakras [2014] VSC 110
Case: [2014] VSC 110
Decision Date: 25 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs brought a defamation claim against the first defendant in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from two articles published on the internet by the first defendant, a journalist. Both articles were linked to each other, with the second discussing a phrase used in the first. The plaintiffs argued that the articles defamed them, while the first defendant claimed the articles expressed fair comment and honest opinion. The court had to determine whether the articles could be treated as a single composite publication for the purposes of assessing the meaning of the defamatory matter and supporting the defences of fair comment and honest opinion.

The court examined the nature of internet publications and the principles governing composite publications in defamation cases. It considered whether the hyperlink between the articles created a single publication or if they remained distinct entities. The court found that the hyperlink did not transform the articles into a single publication. Each article had its own distinct message and context, and readers would perceive them as separate publications. The court held that the articles must be analysed individually to ascertain the meaning of the matter complained of and to assess the defences of fair comment and honest opinion.

Consequently, the court determined that the articles were separate publications for the purposes of the defamation claim. This meant that the first defendant could not rely on the content of the second article to support the defences in relation to the first article. The court found that the first article did contain defamatory meanings imputed to the plaintiffs, and the defences of fair comment and honest opinion were not made out. The plaintiffs were awarded damages for defamation against the first defendant. The second defendant was found not liable as it had not published the articles.

Orders