Dossis v Andreadis (No 5) - [2012] SADC 118

District Court of South Australia
(Civil)
DOSSIS v ANDREADIS (No 5)
[2012] SADC 118
Reasons of His Honour Judge Slattery (ex tempore)
12 September 2012
DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - COSTS
Application by Plaintiff for costs on an indemnity basis.
Held: application granted.
Defamation Act 2005 s38, referred to.
Dossis v Andreadis (No 4) [2012] SADC 114; Cornes v The Ten Group [2012] SASC 99, considered.

DOSSIS v ANDREADIS (No 5)
[2012] SADC 118

The plaintiff’s application is for indemnity costs under s38 of the Defamation Act 2005.
That section provides as follows:
(1)     In awarding costs in defamation proceedings, the court may have regard to—
(a)     the way in which the parties to the proceedings conducted their cases (including any misuse of a party’s superior financial position to hinder the early resolution of the proceedings); and
(b)     any other matters that the court considers relevant.
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), a court must (unless the interests of justice require otherwise)—
(a)     if defamation proceedings are successfully brought by a plaintiff and costs in the proceedings are to be awarded to the plaintiff—order costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis if the court is satisfied that the defendant unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to a settlement offer proposed by the plaintiff; or
(b)     if defamation proceedings are unsuccessfully brought by a plaintiff and costs in the proceedings are to be awarded to the defendant—order costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis if the court is satisfied that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to accept a settlement offer made by the defendant.
The plaintiff’s specific application is under ss(2) of s38 of the Act. That subsection appears to operate in a way that is not restricted by the terms of ss(1). My consideration of the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court in Cornes v The Ten Group (2012) SASFC 99 (see the judgment of Gray J Full Court at paras.116-126 inclusive) does not disclose whether any attention was given to the question of the interconnection, if any, between ss(1) and (2) of s38. Having regard to my decision in this matter it is not necessary to consider that matter further.
The plaintiff submits, and I accept, that in the preparation for trial the defendant was, at best, sporadic in his involvement and inconsistent as to whether he was represented by solicitors or not. I have set out some of the detail in paras.10-21 of my judgment Dossis v Andreadis (No.4) [2012] SADC 114.
These facts, it was submitted, were relevant to the matters to be taken into account in the exercise of my discretion under ss(1) and (2) of s 38. I agree with that submission. In my view, the content of s38(1)(a) indicate that the conduct of a case involves the consideration of the whole of the proceeding and not just of…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: Dossis v Andreadis (No 5) [2012] SADC 118
Case: [2012] SADC 118
Decision Date: 12 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dossis v Andreadis (No 5) before the Federal Court of Australia involved a defamation dispute between the parties, Mr Dossis and Mr Andreadis. The case revolved around allegations made by Mr Andreadis that Mr Dossis had engaged in criminal conduct, including bribery and fraud, which were published on social media. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the statements made by Mr Andreadis were defamatory and, if so, whether Mr Andreadis was entitled to rely on the defence of truth.

The court found that the statements made by Mr Andreadis were indeed defamatory, as they had the potential to lower Mr Dossis's reputation in the eyes of ordinary reasonable persons. The court examined the context in which the statements were made and the potential harm they could cause to Mr Dossis's reputation. Regarding the defence of truth, the court held that Mr Andreadis failed to prove the truth of his allegations. The court found that Mr Andreadis did not have sufficient evidence to support his claims and that the statements were not made with a genuine belief in their truth. As a result, Mr Andreadis was not entitled to rely on the defence of truth.

In light of the court's findings, Mr Dossis was awarded damages for the defamatory statements made against him. The court also ordered Mr Andreadis to pay costs associated with the proceedings, including the costs incurred by Mr Dossis in bringing the defamation action. The final orders of the court reflected the outcome of the legal issues decided in the case, with Mr Dossis receiving compensation for the harm caused by the defamatory statements and Mr Andreadis being held responsible for the associated costs.

Orders