Gluyas v John Best Junior - [2013] VSC 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. SCI 2010 00868

PHILIP GLUYAS	Plaintiff
v
JOHN BEST JUNIOR	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 January 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 January 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Gluyas v John Best Junior
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 3

---

DEFAMATION – Internet publications – Undefended trial – Whether material published in Victoria – Whether defamatory – Imputations – Damages.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Greenway (pro bono)
No appearance by Defendant

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff claims damages for defamation arising from a number of items uploaded by the defendant onto the internet by use of various different websites.

The proceeding was issued on 18 February 2010. The defendant resides in Londonderry, New Hampshire, in the United States of America. The plaintiff arranged for the proceeding to be served on the defendant in the United States, relying on Rule 7.01 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The defendant did not file an appearance to the writ. Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to r 7.04, required leave to proceed. His application for leave had a rather protracted history, which it is not necessary for me to set out at any length. On 25 November 2011, Associate Justice Mukhtar, having concluded that the statement of claim served on the defendant was deficient, required the plaintiff to file and serve an amended statement of claim.

Pursuant to that order, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim dated 31 January 2012. Service of that amended pleading was effected on the defendant in the United States. The defendant responded to that pleading by a letter to the court dated 21 March 2012, to which I shall later further refer. By an order dated 30 April 2012, Associate Justice Mukhtar noted that the plaintiff’s amended pleading had been served under the Hague Convention procedure. His Honour declined to give the plaintiff unconditional leave to proceed at that point, because of the unusual features of the case. Accordingly, he referred the matter to the Associate Justice responsible for trial fixtures, so that the case might be fixed in the Trial Division as an undefended trial.

The case was originally listed to be heard in the Supreme Court in Ballarat in September. However, the case could not be heard on that occasion. The trial of the case was then referred to myself. Because of other court commitments, I was unavailable to hear the case until 21 January 2013.

By the letter which he sent to court, the defendant made it clear that he did not intend to appear in the case, or to defend the claim made against him by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the case proceeded before me as an undefended trial. Originally, the plaintiff had intended to present his case in person. However, in late 2012, he sought the assistance of the Victorian Bar. As a result, Mr Tim Greenway 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 Gluyas v John Best Junior

Details

AGLC: Gluyas v John Best Junior [2013] VSC 3
Case: [2013] VSC 3
Decision Date: 24 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gluyas v John Best Junior, the plaintiff, Gluyas, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, John Best Junior, for statements made on the internet. The dispute centred on several internet posts made by Best Junior which Gluyas claimed were defamatory. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the material published by Best Junior in Victoria was defamatory, and if so, what imputations were made and whether they had caused damage to Gluyas' reputation. The court had to consider the meaning of the posts, the context in which they were published, and the potential harm they might have caused to Gluyas' reputation.

The court examined the content of the posts and found that they did contain defamatory imputations. The court held that the material was published in Victoria and was therefore subject to Victorian law. The defamatory imputations included serious allegations against Gluyas, and the court found that these statements were likely to cause harm to Gluyas' reputation. After assessing the evidence and the arguments presented, the court determined that damages were warranted. The court awarded damages to Gluyas for the defamation suffered.

Orders