District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Jay & Anor v Petrikas & Ors (No.4) [2022] NSWDC 628 Hearing dates: 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 November, 1 December 2022 Date of orders: 13 December 2022 Decision date: 13 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs 704 - 705
Catchwords: TORTS – injurious falsehood – plaintiffs hold offices within Rural Fire Service Brigades - three publications by other office holders within the Rural Fire Service comprising or relating to disciplinary complaints against the plaintiffs – publications caused investigation by investigator external to RFS – investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence of breaches of service standards – appointing officer elected not to refer matters for disciplinary action – the scope of the element to the tort that the representations concern the ‘plaintiff and his or her property’– whether representations conveyed by the publications were false – whether malice actuated publications – whether causation established - whether the plaintiffs suffered actual damage – whether the plaintiffs’ incurring of legal expenses at an investigation into allegations conducted in accordance with RFS procedures for investigations was intended or the natural and probable consequence of any malicious falsehoods
DAMAGES – whether outstanding debt owed by a plaintiff to his lawyers, for which the other plaintiff is jointly and severally liable constitutes actual harm to both plaintiffs – whether aggravated and/or exemplary damages should be awarded
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5D
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 136
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) ss 245-35 – 245-45
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)
Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW)
Rural Fire Regulation 2013 (NSW) rr 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) ss 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21
Cases Cited: AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1395; [2011] Aust Torts Reports 82-077
Anon (1706) 88 ER 921
ASIC v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 274 ALR 731
Badenach v Calvert (2016) 257 CLR 440
Ballina SC v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680
Bauer Media Pty Ltd v Wilson (No.2) [2018] VSCA 154
Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 642
Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 (2014) 254 CLR 185
Edwards v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 181
Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc v Aviation News Ltd [2013] EWHC 1505
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82
Gray v Motor Accidents Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hill v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159
Hutley v Cosco [2020] NSWCA 17
Irving v Phingst [2021] QCA 280
Jay v Petrikas [2019] NSWDC 707
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
KSMC Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Hubba Bubba Childcare on Haig v Bowden [2020] NSWCA 28
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jay & Anor v Petrikas & Ors (No.4) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 628
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the publications constituted false representations concerning the plaintiffs and their property, whether the publications were actuated by malice, whether the plaintiffs suffered actual damage, and whether the incurring of legal expenses was intended or the natural and probable consequence of the alleged malicious falsehoods. The court had to consider the scope of the tort of injurious falsehood and its application to the facts of the case. Furthermore, the court examined whether the plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated and/or exemplary damages, and if the outstanding debt owed by one plaintiff to his lawyers, for which the other plaintiff is jointly and severally liable, constituted actual harm to both plaintiffs.
The court found that the publications did not convey false representations concerning the plaintiffs and their property, and that the publications were not actuated by malice. The court further held that the plaintiffs did not suffer actual damage as a result of the publications, and that the incurring of legal expenses during the investigation was not an intended or natural and probable consequence of the alleged malicious falsehoods. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for damages were dismissed. The court also ruled that the outstanding debt owed by one plaintiff to his lawyers, for which the other plaintiff is jointly and severally liable, did not constitute actual harm to both plaintiffs.
The court made orders dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings. The court found that there were no grounds for awarding aggravated or exemplary damages. The specific orders made by the court are detailed in paragraphs 704 to 705 of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs 704 - 705
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.