Goldberg v Voigt

Case [2020] NSWDC 174

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldberg v Voigt [2020] NSWDC 174
Hearing dates: 13-14 February 2020
Date of orders: 07 May 2020
Decision date: 07 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Weinstein SC DCJ
Decision:

I award the plaintiff the sum of $35,000 in damages for defamation.
I will hear the parties on the question of costs.
The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the sum of $8,000 as a fixed sum for her costs incurred in proceedings 2019/00294969.

Catchwords: Defamation – Application for assessment of damages - offer to make amends out of time – statement of claim as concerns notice – Facebook publication– closed group – serious imputations including killer and stalker of women – limited dissemination – grapevine effect
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited: Bolton v Stoltenberg [2018] NSWSC 1518
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons (1993) 178 CLR 44
Collier v Country Women’s Association of NSW [2017] NSWSC 1573
Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Browne (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 86
Cripps v Vakras [2014] VSC 279
Hockey v Fairfax Media [2015] FCA 652
Mohareb v Booth [2020] NSWCA 49
Palmer Bruyn & Parker v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Zoef v Nationwide News PTY Ltd [2016] NSWCA 283
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bruce Goldberg (Plaintiff)
Alice Voigt (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Matthew Richardson (Plaintiff)
Mr Keiran Smark SC (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Goldsmiths Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Centennial Lawyers(Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/363255
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Bruce Goldberg, has been defamed by the defendant, Ms Alice Voigt.

  2. The proceedings concern a claim for damages for defamation arising from a single post about the plaintiff, made by the defendant on a community Facebook webpage on 16 November 2018 (“the post”).

  3. This judgment determines the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

  4. The circumstances are as follows:-

  1. On 16 November 2018 the defendant posted the following on the “Rose Bay Community – Original and Official Group Facebook Page” (the Original Rose Bay FB page), which appears in a numbered format at tab 2 of the plaintiff’s Tender Bundle, which is exhibit 1.

3.“Dear Women of Rose Bay

4.Please be extremely careful when interacting with Bruce Goldberg on the 5.local websites. He gets his kicks out of intimidating, bullying and threatening 6.women. He finds where you live and hand delivers mail to your house.

7.Bruce, I’m happy to meet you face to face, I’d like you to come and deliver a 8.letter to my house but I don’t think you would get much joy out of dealing 9.with me. That’s not a threat it’s a fact.

10.Bruce it’s not slander if it’s truce. Too many women have been killed by 11.stalkers and unstable people to let this sort of stuff scare us into submission.

12.I call you out Bruce!” [sic] (emphasis added)

  1. The plaintiff filed a statement of claim on 26 November 2018, which was served…

Continue reading Goldberg v Voigt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goldberg v Voigt [2020] NSWDC 174
Case
[2020] NSWDC 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Goldberg v Voigt, the plaintiff, Goldberg, sought to recover damages for defamation caused by statements published by the defendant, Voigt, on Facebook. The defamatory content included serious imputations such as allegations that Goldberg was a killer and a stalker of women, which were made in a closed Facebook group. Despite the limited number of people initially exposed to the post, Goldberg argued that the content had a significant impact due to the nature of the imputations and the potential for further dissemination through the "grapevine effect". The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's belated offer to make amends could influence the assessment of damages. The court had to determine the appropriate level of damages considering the defamatory nature of the statements and their dissemination.

The court addressed whether the defendant's offer to make amends, which came after the proceedings had been initiated, could affect the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff. The court examined the seriousness of the defamatory statements and the impact of their dissemination within the closed Facebook group. Despite the limited initial reach, the court recognised the potential for broader dissemination through word of mouth. The court held that the imputations were of a serious nature, with significant potential to cause harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The court concluded that the belated offer to make amends did not warrant a reduction in the damages awarded.

Goldberg was awarded $35,000 in damages for the defamation. The court acknowledged the gravity of the imputations and their potential impact on Goldberg's reputation. The defendant was ordered to pay $8,000 as a fixed sum for the plaintiff's costs incurred in the proceedings from 2019/00294969. The court scheduled a future hearing to address the issue of costs, ensuring that the parties would have an opportunity to present their arguments on this matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

I award the plaintiff the sum of $35,000 in damages for defamation.

I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the sum of $8,000 as a fixed sum for her costs incurred in proceedings 2019/00294969.

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.