Jamoo v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - [2004] NSWSC 126

CITATION: George Jamoo v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 126

HEARING DATE(S): 02.03.04; 03.03.04; 04.03.04; 08.03.04

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: Judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $79,200.00

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - Assessment - Damages - loss of earning capacity - aggravated compensatory damages for failure to apologise and falsity of imputations

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) ss 7A, 9, 46, 46A

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos (2001) 54 NSWLR 165
Harrison v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 293
Hughes v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 504
Markovic v White [2004] NSWSC 37
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52
Selecta Homes and Building Co. Pty Ltd v Advertiser-Weekend Publishing Co. Pty Ltd (2001) SASC 140
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Thomas v van der Yssel (1976) 14 SASR 205

PARTIES :
Geroge Jamoo - Plaintiff
Nationwide News Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20338/02

COUNSEL: T Molomby SC - Plaintiff
J Sackar QC/D Sibtain - Defendant

SOLICITORS: John McEncroe & Company - Plaintiff
Blake Dawson Waldron - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

Nicholas J

25 March 2004

20338/02 George Jamoo v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT
Introduction

1 His Honour: The Plaintiff, George Jamoo sues the Defendant, Nationwide News Pty Ltd for damages for defamation. The Defendant is the publisher of the newspaper “The Daily Telegraph” which circulates within New South Wales, The Australian Capital Territory and to some extent in other states of Australia.

2 The publication sued upon was the edition of the newspaper of 18 June 2002. In its business section in the column entitled “Bottom of the Harbour”, the relevant article appeared under the heading “Karl’s clobber had its price”. The full text of the article is annexure “A” to these reasons.

3 On 10 March 2003 a jury determined that the article conveyed the following imputations which it found to be defamatory of the Plaintiff:

“(b) That he took part in removing large sums of money from the Karl for Men account, shortly before that business went into liquidation, to prevent those funds falling into the hands of the liquidator”.

(d) That he paid $40,000 from the Karl for Men account, which should have been paid to the liquidator of the business, to Karl Suleman”.

4 There is no defence. The matter has proceeded only for the assessment of damages. The Plaintiff claims compensatory damages, including aggravated damages, and damages in respect of some financial loss.

5 The oral evidence for the Plaintiff was from himself and Dr Fawzy Soliman. The Defendant called no witness. Each party relied upon documentary evidence.

6 I find that the Plaintiff and Dr Soliman were…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jamoo v Nationwide News Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWSC 126
Decision Date: 25 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Jamoo and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, arising from allegations of defamation published in various newspapers and online platforms by the defendant. The plaintiff, Jamoo, sought compensation for damages, including loss of earning capacity and aggravated compensatory damages due to the defendant's failure to apologise and the falsity of the imputations made. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg.

The central legal issues before the court included the assessment of damages for defamation, specifically whether the defendant's failure to apologise and the falsity of the imputations warranted aggravated compensatory damages, and the extent to which these factors contributed to the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity. The court had to balance these considerations against the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability and the nature of the imputations.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Bromberg considered the extent to which the defamatory imputations affected Jamoo's reputation and earning capacity. The court found that the imputations had indeed caused significant harm, particularly due to their falsity and the defendant's refusal to retract or apologise. The judge concluded that aggravated compensatory damages were appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the defendant's conduct and its impact on the plaintiff. The court also determined the amount of damages for loss of earning capacity, taking into account the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's professional standing and potential earnings.

Orders