JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: FJ (pseudonym initials) -v- SIGLIN [No 2] [2024] WADC 13
CORAM: GILLAN DCJ
HEARD: 15 FEBRUARY 2024
DELIVERED : 8 MARCH 2024
FILE NO/S: CIV 1762 of 2021
BETWEEN: FJ (pseudonym initials)
Plaintiff
AND
DAVID SIGLIN
Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Posts on Facebook page - Defamatory statements - Aggravated damages - Quantum
Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 6, s 25, s 31, s 34, s 36
Result:
Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of:
$250,000 damages
Interest from 21 May 2021 in the sum of $42,041.10
The plaintiff to be heard with respect to the costs of the action
Representation:
Counsel:
| Plaintiff | : | Mr R V Graham & Mr I W Priddis |
| Defendant | : | No appearance |
Solicitors:
| Plaintiff | : | Graham & Associates Lawyers |
| Defendant | : | Not applicable |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Belbin v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Dods v McDonald (No 2) [2016] VSC 201
Embleton Motor Co Pty Ltd v St Kilda Beach Taxi School and Staffing Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 183
Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) 201 ALR 77
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Lyell Steven Allen t/as AVL Electrical Services v Godley [2023] WADC 54
McDonald v Dods [2017] VSCA 129
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra [1998] 2 All ER 638
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16; (2009) 238 CLR 460; (2009) 254 ALR 606
Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No 9] [2017] WASC 367
Sands v The State of South Australia [2015] SASCFC 36; (2015) 122 SASR 195
Scott v Baring [2018] WASC 361
Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc LLC (No 3) [2012] VSC 228
Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc LLC [2012] VSC 88
GILLAN DCJ:
This matter came before me following the entry of judgment on the execution of a springing order against the defendant in the plaintiff's action for defamation. These are my reasons for finding for the plaintiff on the defamatory imputations arising out of a publication on Facebook on 17 March 2021 by the defendant (the Facebook post), and my assessment of the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
The law
I will repeat to some extent and to some extent expand on the law as I set it out in Allen v Godley.[1] The common law in respect of the…
Continue reading FJ (pseudonym initials) v Siglin [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- FJ (pseudonym initials) v Siglin [No 2] [2024] WADC 13
- Case
- [2024] WADC 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues in this case were whether the defendant's Facebook posts constituted defamation and, if so, what quantum of damages should be awarded to the plaintiff. The court also needed to determine whether the 'grapevine effect' of the posts should be taken into account in assessing the damages.
The court found that the posts were indeed defamatory and that the defendant was responsible for the continued publication and any grapevine effect flowing from that publication. The court held that the 'grapevine effect' is a realistic recognition by the law that defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom it is immediately published. The court further held that in determining the quantum of damages to be awarded, there must be an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and the amount of damages awarded. The court found that the plaintiff was a man of good reputation and had lost the opportunity to maintain his Facebook profile due to the defamatory posts. The court awarded the plaintiff general damages for the consequences of publication, including any diminution in the regard in which the plaintiff was held by others, any isolation produced as a result of the plaintiff being shunned or avoided, and any conduct adverse to the plaintiff engaged in by others because of the publication of the defamatory matter.
The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in general damages for the harm caused by the defamatory posts. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.
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
The 'grapevine' effect is said to be 'no more than the realistic recognition by the law that, by the ordinary function of human nature, the dissemination of defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom the matter is immediately published'.[19] [19] Belbin v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535 [217]. The grapevine effect was made more likely by the initial notoriety of the shooting of Nick Martin, media coverage of which had reached around the world to the UK, and by the media response to the person arrested being charged. That the defendant published the Facebook post on his publicly accessible Facebook page, albeit for a short period of about 24 hours give or take, he is responsible for the continued publication and any grapevine effect which might flow from that publication. In determining the quantum of damages to be awarded, s 23 of the Act requires the court to ensure there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and the amount of damages awarded. As Chaney J observed in Rayney at [836] ‑ [837] any sum of damages awarded must ordinarily be at least the minimum necessary to signal to the public the vindication of the plaintiff's reputation and the gravity of the libel and the social standing of the parties are relevant to assessing the quantum of damages necessary to effect vindication of the plaintiff. Damages are 'at large' in the sense that they cannot be arrived at through calculation or the application of a formula and are therefore necessarily imprecise. At [840] his Honour said:The compensation by way of general damages includes compensation for the consequences of publication including any diminution in the regard in which the plaintiff is held by others, any isolation produced as a result of the plaintiff being shunned or avoided, and any conduct adverse to the plaintiff engaged in by others because of the publication of the defamatory matter. Damages are also awarded for the plaintiff's injured feelings, including the hurt, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, sense of indignity and sense of outrage felt by the plaintiff. Here the publication was very public - by the use of Facebook the publication was to the world at large of Facebook users. While the Facebook post was removed there remains a possibility that the Facebook post could still be circulating on the internet including by way of direct messages. The plaintiff was and is, I accept, a man of good reputation. While no evidence was led directly of his reputation among the community [Redacted], continues to work and over his working life has developed his skills and experience so as to be employed in a highly specialised career of which he is rightly proud. He has a lot of friends and those who spoke for him clearly thought well of him. MT was prepared to give evidence by video link from overseas at what was an early time of the morning. The plaintiff had developed skills in [Redacted] and has, as a consequence, quite a following on Facebook. He has, by reason of this post, lost the opportunity to maintain his Facebook profile.