Payne JA at [1]; Kirk JA at [2]; Griffiths JA at [3]
Decision:
(1) Time is extended for the filing of the summon seeking leave to appeal.
(2) Leave to appeal is granted.
(3) The appellants to file a notice of appeal in the terms of the draft notice of appeal within seven days.
(4) The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Catchwords:
APPEALS – Leave to appeal – question of general principle – scope of tort of injurious falsehood
TORTS – Economic torts – Injurious falsehood – malice – where false representations were beliefs or opinions reasonably held
TORTS – Economic torts – Injurious falsehood – falsity – whether any error to approach to falsity in the particular circumstances of the case
TORTS – Economic torts – Injurious falsehood – damages – whether representations leading to internal investigation caused actual damage – whether aggravated and/or exemplary damages could be awarded in the circumstances
TORTS – Economic torts – Injurious falsehood – scope – where unsuitable to determine given failure of other aspects of the 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 Jay v Petrikas
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jay v Petrikas [2023] NSWCA 297
Case
[2023] NSWCA 297
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Jay v Petrikas* was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Justices Payne, Kirk, and Griffiths presiding. The dispute concerned an appeal against a decision, the specifics of which are not detailed, but it involved allegations of injurious falsehood. The appellants sought leave to appeal, raising questions regarding the scope of the tort of injurious falsehood, particularly concerning the elements of malice, falsity, and damages.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the representations made by the respondents, which were alleged to be false, were based on beliefs or opinions that could reasonably have been held, thereby impacting the element of malice. The court also had to consider whether there was an error in the approach taken to determining the falsity of the representations in the specific circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the appeal raised questions about whether the representations, which allegedly led to an internal investigation, caused actual damage, and whether aggravated or exemplary damages were available.
The Court of Appeal ultimately determined that the appeal should be dismissed. While granting an extension of time for the filing of the summons seeking leave to appeal and granting leave to appeal itself, the court found that the appeal on its merits was unsuccessful. The court's reasoning, as indicated by the catchwords, suggested that the tort of injurious falsehood was unsuitable for determination in this instance, likely due to failures in other aspects of the appeal. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Time is extended for the filing of the summon seeking leave to appeal.
(2) Leave to appeal is granted.
(3) The appellants to file a notice of appeal in the terms of the draft notice of appeal within seven days.