HEARD: 28‑29 JANUARY, 8‑13 FEBRUARY, 12‑16 JULY, 2‑13 AUGUST, 19 AUGUST ‑ 3 SEPTEMBER, 14‑16 OCTOBER, 4‑5 NOVEMBER 2021 & 17 JANUARY 2022
DELIVERED : 9 FEBRUARY 2022
FILE NO/S: CIV 1512 of 2018
BETWEEN: BRENDAN JAMES DE KAUWE
Plaintiff
AND
HAIM COHEN
First Defendant
ILAN SAAD
Second Defendant
GALIT ASSAF SHENHAR
Third Defendant
ERAN GILBOA
Fourth Defendant
BENJAMIN KARASIK
Fifth Defendant
IAN CRAIG PAMENSKY
Sixth Defendant
MATTHEW WRIGHT
Seventh Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Meaning - Publication of imputations in private and public company correspondence - Whether national and ordinary meaning of imputations defamatory of plaintiff
Defamation - Publication - Liability - Whether defendants authorised and intended publication - Whether defendants participated in publication and republication - Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller[2021] HCA 27; (2021) 392 ALR 540
Defences - Qualified privilege - Common law qualified privilege - Whether publication pursuant to duty or interest to provide information to directors and officers of company who had corresponding duty to receive information - Whether publications constituted reply to attack - Statutory qualified privilege - s 30(3) Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Defences - Qualified privilege - Malice - Whether publications actuated by improper motive or purpose - Whether privileged occasion exceeded
Damages - Assessment - Special damages - Whether plaintiff lost opportunity to remain director of companies - Whether plaintiff lost opportunity to acquire options as director of company - Whether plaintiff lost opportunity to become director of company
Damages - Assessment - General damages - Damage to reputation and professional standing - Aggravated compensatory damages - Whether conduct of defendants improper, unjustifiable, or lacking in bona fides - Whether damage amplified via 'grapevine effect'
Damages - Tort - Injurious falsehood - Whether imputations in certain publications were false - Whether exemplary damages necessary
[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 De Kauwe v Cohen [No 4]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
De Kauwe v Cohen [No 4] [2022] WASC 35 (S)
Case
[2022] WASC 35 (S)
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
De Kauwe v Cohen [No 4] was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involving a dispute over costs. Dr de Kauwe, the plaintiff, sought to recover costs associated with legal services provided during the litigation. The defendants, Cohen, contested the amount of costs that could be recovered, arguing that they should be limited to the maxima specified in the relevant items or hourly rates within the applicable Costs Determination.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's costs should be limited by the maxima specified in the relevant items or hourly rates within the applicable Costs Determination, or if the taxing officer should be directed to assess the costs without such limitations. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff had established a valid reason to deviate from the standard limits on costs, particularly in relation to the work done by Mr Bennett.
The court found that while the greater experience of taxing officers in relation to the cost of legal services generally made it more appropriate for the court to leave the determination of costs to the taxing officer, Dr de Kauwe had not provided a valid reason to raise the hourly rates for any practitioner or counsel other than Mr Bennett. Therefore, the court made orders allowing the taxing officer to assess the plaintiff's costs without reference to the limits, or, in respect of work done by Mr Bennett, hourly rates imposed by the relevant costs determination. This decision reflected the court's preference for the taxing officer to determine the appropriate costs based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Generally speaking, the greater experience of taxing officers in relation to the cost of legal services makes it more appropriate for the court to merely direct that the bill be taxed without limitations imposed by the maxima specified in the relevant items or hourly rates within the applicable Costs Determination, instead leaving it to the taxing officer to determine whether in fact an award of costs reflecting a greater amount, or a greater number of hours, or a higher hourly rate than those allowed in the determination is justified. So, in this case, I will make orders which will allow the taxing officer to award costs reflecting the provision of services by a greater number of hours or at a higher hourly rate than those allowed in the relevant item, if the taxing officer considers such an award to be justified.[227] So, the orders will be that the plaintiff's costs be assessed without reference to the limits, or, in respect of work done by Mr Bennett, hourly rates imposed by the relevant costs determination.[227] Electricity Generation and Retail Corp t/as Synergy v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] WASC 469 (S) [30] (Martin CJ). Dr de Kauwe has not established any reason for raising the hourly rates in respect of work done by any practitioner or counsel other than Mr Bennett.