Dabrowski v Greeuw

Case [2014] WADC 175

DABROWSKI -v- GREEUW [2014] WADC 175



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WADC 175
Case No:CIV:964/20133, 4, 5 & 6 JUNE, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 AUGUST & 1 DECEMBER 2014
Coram:BOWDEN DCJ22/12/14
PERTH
55Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,500
PDF Version
Parties:MIROSLAW DABROWSKI
ROBYN GREEUW

Catchwords:
Defamation
Post by estranged wife on her public Facebook page
Distinct and separate imputations
Defence of justification
Aggravated damages
Quantum

Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)

Case References:
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56
Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Australian Medical Association (WA) Inc v McEvoy (No 2) [2012] WASC 416
Australian Medical Association (WA) Inc v McEvoy [2012] WASC 50
Baron v Walsh [2014] WASCA 124
Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [2001] EMLR 1030
Boyd v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASC 388
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Buckeridge v Walter [2010] WASCA 134
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579
Caccavo v Daft [2006] TASSC 36
Campbell v News Group Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1143
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772
Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd [2012] SASCFC 99
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
David Syme & Co v Canavan [1918] HCA 50; (1918) 25 CLR 234
Douglas v McLernon [2013] WASC 126
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 221 ALR 186
Findlay v Grimmer [No 2] [2013] WASC 247
Gillick v Brooke Advisory Centre [2001] EWCA Civ 1263
Grumm v Norman [2008] EWHC 116
Harding v Essey (2005) 30 WAR 1
Hough v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1940] 2 KB 507
Howden v Truth & Sportsman Ltd (No 2) (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 287
Ives v State of Western Australia [No 8] [2013] WASC 277
Ives v The State of Western Australia [No 8] [2013] WASC 277
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lance v QAV Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 13
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384
Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 254
Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WASC 365
McDonald's Corporation v Steel [1995] 3 All ER 615; [1994] EWCA Civ 41
McPherson v Daniels (1829) 10 B & C 263
McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999] EMLR 751
Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 3; (1979) 141 CLR 632
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239; [1971] 2 All ER 1156
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd…

Continue reading Dabrowski v Greeuw

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dabrowski v Greeuw [2014] WADC 175
Case
[2014] WADC 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Dabrowski, brought an action against the defendant, Greeuw, for defamation following the defendant's publication of several posts on the plaintiff's estranged wife's Facebook page. The plaintiff alleged that the posts were defamatory and sought damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the posts were justified and therefore not defamatory. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the posts contained multiple defamatory imputations and that the defendant had failed to justify them.

The court had to determine whether the posts published by the defendant contained defamatory imputations, whether those imputations were separate and distinct, whether the defence of justification applied, and the appropriate quantum of damages. The court found that the posts did contain separate and distinct defamatory imputations, and that the defence of justification failed as the defendant did not prove the truth of the imputations. The court awarded the plaintiff aggravated damages in the sum of $12,500. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,500

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.