Cripps v Vakras

[2012] VSC 400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 1484 of 2011

ROBERT RAYMOND CRIPPS REDLEG MUSEUM SERVICES PTY LTD	Plaintiffs
v
DEMETRIOS VAKRAS LEE-ANNE RAYMOND	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 September 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 September 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cripps & Anor v Vakras & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 400

---

DEFAMATION – Practice and procedure – Pleadings – Defence – Ambit of publication – Polly Peck imputations – Permissible variants - Qualified privilege – Extent of publication – Whether internet publications are necessarily to the world at large – Mass media publications distinguished - Particulars.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr C. Dibb	Tao Jiang Lawyers
For the Defendants	Mr D.P. Gilbertson	Media Arts Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. In this proceeding, Robert Raymond Cripps and Redleg Museum Services Pty Ltd claim damages for defamation from Dimitrios Vakras and Lee-Anne Raymond.  The proceeding relates to the publication of three articles which are alleged to be available to be downloaded from the internet.  The articles are described by the parties as “the first Vakras article”, “the second Vakras article” and “the Raymond article”.

1. This proceeding was commenced on 1 April 2011.  Subsequently, there have been a number of amendments made to the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and the defendants’ defences.  The current pleadings consist of the plaintiffs’ further amended statement of claim dated 22 May 2012, the first defendant’s further amended defence dated 15 June 2012 and the second defendant’s further amended defence dated 15 June 2012.  Additionally, there have been a number of directions hearings.  There has been discovery and interrogation, and a mediation was conducted in March this year.

1. Notwithstanding these matters, and the fact that this proceeding is designated for trial by judge alone, the plaintiffs now wish to make complaint about parts of the defendants’ defences.  Further, the plaintiffs seek orders for particulars of certain paragraphs of the defendants’ defences, and leave to administer additional interrogatories to the first defendant on the issue of publication of the second Vakras article.  Specifically, the plaintiffs seek the following orders:[1]

   [1]Plaintiffs’ summons filed 26 July 2012.

“1.An order that the words ‘…together with the hyperlinks referred to in the words, all of which the defendants will rely upon at trial’ be struck out from paragraph 5 of the Further Amended Defence of the First Defendant;

2.An order that paragraphs 8A(a), 8A(c), 8D, 8F, 9D and 12B be struck out from the Further Amended Defence of the First Defendant.

3.An order that the particulars of justification at 8A(4) (page 8) be struck out of the Further Amended Defence of the First Defendant;

4.An order that the defence of justification to paragraph 8(d) of the Further Amended Statement of Claim be struck out from the Further Amended Defence of the First Defendant;

5.An order that paragraphs 16A(f), 16D and 17D be struck out from the Further Amended Defence…