Janette Marie Gough (Plaintiff) Pietro Squillacioti (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: Mr R Rasmussen (Plaintiff) Mr R Potter SC with Mr B Dean (Defendant)
Solicitors: Christopher Edwards (Plaintiff) Carroll O’Dea (Defendant)
File Number(s):
2019/329565
Publication restriction:
Nil
Judgment
1. Introduction
The plaintiff and defendant are owners of units in the strata plan at 79-81 Oakland Avenue, The Entrance. In October 2017, they were both elected to positions on the strata committee; the plaintiff as Treasurer and the defendant as Secretary. Within a month the relationship between the parties deteriorated and the plaintiff threatened to resign her position. However, she did not resign and, indeed, although the relationship did not improve, they both nominated themselves for re-election at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Strata Corporation the following year and were re-elected.
During this time there was a good deal of email correspondence between the members of the strata committee as well as between members of the committee and other unit owners. While there was a significant level of co-operation between the members of the committee in this correspondence, the rising level of dislike between the plaintiff and defendant (amongst others) was also displayed there.
In 2019, the defendant wrote a number of emails to all of the owners of the units which largely concerned the plaintiff. The first of these, sent on 23 July 2019, was sent in the context of 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 Gough v Squillacioti
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gough v Squillacioti [2021] NSWDC 411
Case
[2021] NSWDC 411
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Gough v Squillacioti is a defamation case before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Gough, alleged that the defendant, Squillacioti, defamed her by making certain statements on social media about her involvement in the management of a strata scheme. Gough claimed that these statements disparaged her reputation and caused her to lose the respect of others. Squillacioti defended the claim on the grounds of qualified privilege, asserting that the statements were made in good faith for the protection of a legitimate interest in the management of the strata scheme.
The court had to determine whether the statements made by Squillacioti were defamatory and if they were capable of disparaging Gough’s reputation. The court also had to decide whether the defence of qualified privilege applied, considering the context in which the statements were made and the relationship between the parties. The court was required to assess whether Squillacioti had a legitimate interest in the management of the strata scheme and whether the statements were made without malice.
The court found that the statements made by Squillacioti did not disparage Gough’s reputation or cause her to be held in lesser esteem. The court held that the statements were made in good faith and were necessary for the proper management of the strata scheme. The court determined that the defence of qualified privilege applied because Squillacioti had a legitimate interest in the management of the strata scheme, and the statements were made without malice. The court dismissed Gough’s claim, finding that the statements were not defamatory and that the defence of qualified privilege was available to Squillacioti.
As a result of the dismissal of the proceedings, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs. This outcome reflects the court’s view that the defendant’s statements were not defamatory and that the defence of qualified privilege was successfully established. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded costs for the proceedings.