Egan v Santamaria - [2021] NSWDC 418

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Egan v Santamaria [2021] NSWDC 418
Hearing dates: 19 August 2021
Date of orders: 19 August 2021
Decision date: 19 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
Order:
(1)   No appearance for the defendant at the commencement of the Defamation List at 9am and at 10:05 am when these proceedings were called on for hearing.
(2)   Judgment for the plaintiff for $250,000 plus interest at 3.5% from 9 July 2019, making a total of $ 268,506.85.
(3)   Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs with liberty to apply in relation to indemnity costs and/or for a gross sum costs order.
(4)   Exhibits retained until further order.

Catchwords:
TORT - defamation – series of emails to the plaintiff’s friends and business associates – defendant appears on the record briefly but fails to file defence – assessment of damages – grapevine effect – aggravated damages

Cases Cited:
Anderson v Mirror Newspapers Ltd No 2 (1986) 5 NSWLR 735
Bauer Media v Wilson [2018] VSCA 154; 56 VR 674; 361 ALR 642
French v Fraser 2015 NSWSC 1807
Gayle v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1838
Kostov v Amelie Housing [2018] NSWSC 1800
Nugawela v Crampton (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Satz v CAN 069 808 957 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWAC 365

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Jeffery Michael Egan
Defendant: Giuseppe Santamaria
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Coleman Greig Lawyers

File Number(s): 2020/00196820

Judgment

The plaintiff’s claim for defamation

The plaintiff, by amended statement of claim filed on 1 April 2021, brings proceedings for defamation for eight emails published to a wide circle of people whose exact number cannot be precisely ascertained. They include politicians, a media organisation, members of a local council, members of the legal profession and a wide range of persons who know the plaintiff, including his lawyers, his accountant, business associates and friends.
The emails, which are framed in inflammatory and offensive language, contain false and gravely defamatory imputations of corrupt conduct in relation to the police, physical abuse towards the plaintiff’s former wife and son, condoning the physical abuse of his son by the plaintiffs father, being arrested by the police for distributing racist pamphlets and using corrupt connections with police to avoid prosecution for these matters.
The defendant, an accountant employed at Prime Tax Experts in Bondi Junction, is the plaintiff’s former brother-in-law. The plaintiff married the defendant’s sister, Natasha, on 29 June 2013 and there were two children of the marriage. The plaintiff and Natasha separated on 22 February 2018 and the plaintiff retained Coleman Greig Lawyers in relation to parenting and financial issues resulting from the separation.
It was at this time that allegations commenced to be made by the defendant and Natasha about the plaintiff. The triggering factor appears to be in part the breakdown of the marriage and in part the circumstances in which, in September 2018, police offered a one million-dollar reward to some of the…

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 Egan v Santamaria

Details

AGLC: Egan v Santamaria [2021] NSWDC 418
Case: [2021] NSWDC 418
Decision Date: 19 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Egan v Santamaria was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Egan, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Mr. Santamaria. The crux of the dispute centred on a series of emails that the defendant sent to the plaintiff's friends and business associates, which contained defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The defendant appeared briefly at the start of the hearing but failed to file a defence, resulting in an absence of appearance throughout the proceedings.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of the extent to which the defamatory emails were published, the resultant harm caused by the "grapevine effect" of the communications, and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded. The court was required to assess the damages flowing from the defamatory imputations, including aggravated damages, due to the manner in which the defendant published the statements.

The court found that the emails were published to multiple recipients, leading to a broad dissemination of the defamatory content. The "grapevine effect" was significant, as the statements were communicated widely beyond the initial recipients. The court considered the harm to the plaintiff's reputation and business relationships, as well as the distress caused by the defamatory statements. Given the failure of the defendant to appear and defend the proceedings, the court proceeded to award judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The court assessed the total damages, including aggravated damages, at $250,000 plus interest, amounting to $268,506.85. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs, with liberty to apply for indemnity costs or a gross sum costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order:

(1) No appearance for the defendant at the commencement of the Defamation List at 9am and at 10:05 am when these proceedings were called on for hearing.

(2) Judgment for the plaintiff for $250,000 plus interest at 3.5% from 9 July 2019, making a total of $ 268,506.85.

(3) Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs with liberty to apply in relation to indemnity costs and/or for a gross sum costs order.

(4) Exhibits retained until further order.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Egan v Santamaria [2021] NSWDC 418
Hearing dates:	19 August 2021
Date of orders:	19 August 2021
Decision date:	19 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	Order: (1) No appearance for the defendant at the commencement of the Defamation List at 9am and at 10:05 am when these proceedings were called on for hearing. (2) Judgment for the plaintiff for $250,000 plus interest at 3.5% from 9 July 2019, making a total of $ 268,506.85. (3) Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs with liberty to apply in relation to indemnity costs and/or for a gross sum costs order. (4) Exhibits retained until further order.
Catchwords:	TORT - defamation – series of emails to the plaintiff’s friends and business associates – defendant appears on the record briefly but fails to file defence – assessment of damages – grapevine effect – aggravated damages
Cases Cited:	Anderson v Mirror Newspapers Ltd No 2 (1986) 5 NSWLR 735 Bauer Media v Wilson [2018] VSCA 154; 56 VR 674; 361 ALR 642 French v Fraser 2015 NSWSC 1807 Gayle v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1838 Kostov v Amelie Housing [2018] NSWSC 1800 Nugawela v Crampton (1996) 41 NSWLR 176 Satz v CAN 069 808 957 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWAC 365
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff: Jeffery Michael Egan Defendant: Giuseppe Santamaria
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen Solicitors: Plaintiff: Coleman Greig Lawyers
File Number(s):	2020/00196820