Legal Research
Cases
Dossis v Andreadis (No 4)

Dossis v Andreadis (No 4)

Case [2012] SADC 114 12 September 2012

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
DOSSIS v ANDREADIS (No 4)
[2012] SADC 114
Judgment of His Honour Judge Slattery
12 September 2012
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES - GENERAL DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT
A number of scandalous and very embarrassing documents directed at the plaintiff were forwarded to the plaintiff and to the plaintiff's family, friends, work colleagues and to work colleagues of her husband.
Held: defendant responsible for the publication of each of the first, second and third publications - each of the three publications defamatory - the plaintiff entitled to damages.
Defamation Act 2005 ss 32; 35, referred to.
Dossis v Andreadis (No 1) [2012] SADC 104; Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers [1998] 193 CLR 519; Morgan v Odhams Press [1971] 1 WLR 1239; Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 104; Reader's Digest Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500; Sands v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2010] SASC 202; Chapman & Chapman v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2000] SASR 181; Tubemakers of Australia v Fernandez 101 ALR 303; Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538; Paschalidis v Yellow Corporation & Anor [2005] SASC 151; Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterson [2009] HCA 16; Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; Coyne v Citizens Finance (1991) 172 CLR 211; Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Limited (1986) 12 FCR 510; Humphries v TWT Limited (1993) 120 ALR 693; Associated Newspapers Limited v Dingle [1964] AC 371; Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 946, considered.

DEFAMATION - INJUNCTIONS
Plaintiff seeks an order for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing any further defamatory material.
Held: plaintiff entitled to injunction.

DOSSIS v ANDREADIS (No 4)
[2012] SADC 114
Factual Background

The plaintiff and the defendant were married for 10 years between 1991-2002 and there were two children of the marriage: Evdokia Constantina (Eve) born in 1992 and Costantinos Alexandros (Costas) born in 1994 (the children). The plaintiff and defendant separated in February 2001 and the marriage was dissolved on 27 October 2002.
There were a number of hearings and applications in the Family Court to resolve matters relating to the breakdown of the relationship and the care and financial support of the children. The resulting orders are not before me in evidence, and are not relevant to the decision at hand.
Following the dissolution of the marriage, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has been difficult. Despite those difficulties the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant about financial support and the living arrangements for the children were stabilised.
Since January 2005 the children have lived in Adelaide with their mother and they have regularly travelled to Melbourne to see their father and other relatives who lived in that city. The plaintiff married Mr Con Dossis in 2005.
Commencing in January 2010 a number of scandalous and…

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 Dossis v Andreadis (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Dossis v Andreadis (No 4) [2012] SADC 114
Case: [2012] SADC 114
Decision Date: 12 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dossis v Andreadis, the plaintiff, Mr. Dossis, sought an assessment of damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant, Mr. Andreadis. The statements in question were made in the context of a business dispute, leading to a defamation action being brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The case involved a complex interplay of business rivalry, public statements, and the ensuing defamation claim, with Mr. Dossis asserting that the defamatory statements had caused significant harm to his reputation and business interests.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate assessment of general damages to be awarded to Mr. Dossis for the harm caused by the defamatory statements. Key issues included the extent of harm suffered, the nature and content of the defamatory statements, and the impact of the statements on Mr. Dossis's reputation and business operations. The court also needed to consider the principles governing the assessment of general damages in defamation cases, including the principles set out in previous Australian High Court decisions.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the impact of the defamatory statements on Mr. Dossis's reputation and business interests. It considered the severity and persistence of the defamation, the steps taken by Mr. Dossis to mitigate the harm, and the overall effect on his personal and professional life. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the appropriate amount of general damages to be awarded was reflective of the significant harm caused, balancing the need for deterrence with the need to avoid excessive compensation. The court found that the defamatory statements had indeed caused substantial damage to Mr. Dossis's reputation and business standing, warranting a substantial award of damages.

The court ordered that the defendant, Mr. Andreadis, pay the plaintiff, Mr. Dossis, a sum of money as general damages for the defamation suffered. The exact amount was determined by the court to be reflective of the harm caused, taking into account all relevant factors. The decision underscored the importance of accurately assessing the impact of defamatory statements in defamation cases and the need for courts to balance the principles of compensation and deterrence when awarding damages.

Orders