Gianni Versace SpA, Santo Versace and Donatella Versace v Frank Monte aka Francois Ferdinand Monteneri and Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited [2002] FCA 190 (8 March 2002)
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gianni Versace SpA, Santo Versace and Donatella Versace
v
Frank Monte aka Francois Ferdinand Monteneri and Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited
N1184 OF 2001
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
It is the practice of this Court in matters which are of significant public interest to make a brief explanatory statement when delivering judgment.
The statement I now make is a short overview of some of the main issues and the findings I have made but it does not purport to comprehensively set out my reasons and findings which are contained in the judgment. The judgment concerns only the question of liability. The question of damages has been separated out and will be considered at a further hearing.
Precise details as to the form of appropriate Orders to be made will need to be the subject of further submissions.
THE BACKGROUND
The House of Versace is a famous Milanese fashion house. The principal Versace company and two members of the Versace family, Donatella Versace and Santo Versace have brought proceedings against both Frank Monte and his company, Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited, essentially claiming they are guilty of false and misleading conduct concerning them and also against Frank Monte for the publication of serious defamatory imputations against them. The Versace claim was that Frank Monte made false statements in claiming a commercial relationship with the late Gianni Versace, who Frank Monte claimed had retained his services as a private investigator and adviser.
One central issue in the case was whether there was ever any conversation, meeting or relationship between Gianni Versace and Frank Monte in the period from January 1996 up to the murder of Gianni Versace on 15 July 1997.
Frank Monte asserted that Gianni Versace confided in him during that eighteen month period with respect to the activities and affairs of the House of Versace and the alleged activities of his brother and sister, Santo and Donatella. The statements alleged by Frank Monte to have been made by Gianni Versace are sensational and grave in nature. They concerned each of the three Versace applicants and were said by Frank Monte to have been based on actual conversations with Gianni Versace. Often, the statements were cast in the form of direct quotations.
The publication of these matters was in the form of a book published by Frank Monte and Arkitude entitled The Spying Game, which was ghost written for Frank Monte to recount his life story. Additionally, some of the imputations and representations have been extensively published in an article in The Weekend Australian colour magazine supplement, of 23-24 June 2001 and on the website maintained by Frank Monte and Arkitude, where a collection of asserted rumours, gossip, sensational newspaper articles and statements were gathered and made available to the world at large. The website was heavily promotional of the Frank Monte image as a…
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 Gianni Versace SpA v Monte
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gianni Versace SpA v Monte [2002] FCA 190
Case
[2002] FCA 190
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Gianni Versace SpA, along with its directors, Santo and Donatella Versace, sought relief against Monte. The applicants alleged that Monte had made defamatory statements regarding the applicants, causing damage to their business and reputations. The applicants sought injunctive relief, declarations, and damages. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by Monte were defamatory and whether they were false and misleading. Additionally, the court had to determine if the applicants had suffered actual and prospective damage as a result of these statements.
The court found that the applicants’ evidence regarding the damage caused by Monte's statements was uncontradicted and consistent with reasonable expectations. Given the serious nature of the allegations, the court concluded that the applicants’ business and reputations were likely to have been harmed, and that this harm would persist if the defamatory statements continued. The court was satisfied that the defamatory claims were substantiated, and that the applicants had indeed suffered and would continue to suffer damage if the statements were not ceased. Consequently, the court found that the applicants were entitled to the requested injunctive relief and declarations.
The court directed the applicants to submit a draft of the orders they sought and a timetable for determining damages. The matter was scheduled to be listed for resolution of these issues within fourteen days, to be arranged with the court's Associate. This decision underscores the court's commitment to protecting the applicants’ business interests and reputations from the effects of defamatory statements.
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
TAMBERLIN J
(dissent)
The applicants’ evidence as to damage was uncontradicted and not shaken in cross-examination. It accords with likely expectations. From the serious criminal nature of the allegations detailed earlier in these reasons, it would follow that the business of the applicant company and the reputations of Santo and Donatella are likely to have been damaged and that they will continue to be damaged if the representations are repeated. Accordingly, I am satisfied that present actual damage and likely future damage in the event of repetition has been established.CONCLUSION On the issue of liability I am satisfied that the representations and imputations have with minor exceptions, been made and were false and misleading. I am satisfied that the defamation claims have been established. I am also satisfied that damage has been and will continue to be suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the representations and imputations. The applicants are therefore entitled to appropriate injunctive relief and to declarations in respect of these matters. I direct the applicants to file and serve on the respondents a draft of the Orders which they seek in accordance with these reasons. I direct the applicants to file a timetable for the determination of damages in this matter. The matter is to be listed for resolution of these questions with my Associate, to be arranged within fourteen (14) days.