|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Georges v Georges; Georges v Georges |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2022] NSWDC 558 |
Hearing Date(s): | 10 November 2022 |
Date of Orders: | 15 November 2022 |
Decision Date: | 15 November 2022 |
Jurisdiction: | Civil |
Before: | Abadee DCJ |
Decision: | See paragraph 108 |
Catchwords: | TORT – defamation – validity of concerns notice – Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 12A and 12B – assessment of adequacy of information provided as to serious harm to reputation – relevance or significance of publisher’s omission to request further particulars notice when determining adequacy of concerns notice – alternative application to strike out certain pleaded imputations on basis not referred to in the concerns notice |
Legislation Cited: | Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 10A, 12A, 12B, 13, 15 |
Cases Cited: | Baker v Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Ltd [1999] NSWCA 245 |
Texts Cited: | D Rolph, ‘A serious harm threshold for Australian Defamation Law’ (2022) 51 Australian Bar Review 185 |
Category: | Procedural rulings |
Parties: | Farah Georges (plaintiff) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 2022/00191186 |
Publication Restriction: | Nil |
REASONS FOR Judgment
Background
Mr Farah Georges (“Farah”) is an experienced Registered Design Practitioner, and is the co-founder and director of a building design and architecture firm, Design Cubicle Pty Ltd. Regrettably, prior to the events the subject of two proceedings in this Court, he fell into different disputes giving rise to litigation with two members of his family: his two younger brothers, George Georges (“George”) and Bassam Georges (“Bassam”). His dispute with George (or through a corporate vehicle wholly controlled by George) concerned land at North Parramatta, and is being litigated in the Supreme Court. His dispute with Bassam concerned an alleged debt, is being litigated in the Local Court.
Farah claims damages in separate defamation suits against his two brothers. In the first proceeding, against George (commenced on 30 June 2022), Farah sued that defendant for publication of 17 matters allegedly conveying defamatory imputations in the period from 3 – 5 May 2022 (incl). For convenience, I will refer to this proceeding as the ‘George proceeding’. In summary, the matters alleged that Farah had engaged in the sexual abuse of children (including family members), consumed narcotics, engaged in violent criminal conduct and the bribery of Supreme Court judges. Publications were made to persons with whom Farah worked, to public regulatory bodies, local government councils, state government bodies…
Continue reading Georges v Georges
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 558
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the concerns notice was adequate in the circumstances and whether the plaintiff's failure to request further particulars from the defendant should be considered when assessing the notice's adequacy. Additionally, the court had to decide on an alternative application by the defendant to strike out certain pleaded imputations on the basis that they were not referenced in the concerns notice. The court had to interpret the provisions of sections 12A and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) in the context of the notice's contents and the principles of fairness and justice.
The court found that the concerns notice was sufficient under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), as it provided adequate details about the imputations and the harm to reputation claimed by the plaintiff. The omission by the plaintiff to request further particulars from the defendant did not impact the notice's adequacy, as the notice itself contained sufficient information. The court further held that the defendant's alternative application to strike out certain pleaded imputations was not appropriate since those imputations were sufficiently referenced in the concerns notice. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application.
In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the concerns notice and rejected the defendant's application to strike out certain imputations. The final orders of the court were as detailed in paragraph 108 of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 108
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.