Legal Research
Cases
Jeffrey v Giles

Jeffrey v Giles

Case [2015] VSCA 70 24 April 2015

Defamation

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Defamation Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2013 0120
DAVID JEFFREY and THOMAS CURNOW	Appellants
v
VIRGINIA GILES	Respondent
S APCI 2013 0113
VIRGINIA GILES	Applicant
v
DAVID JEFFREY and THOMAS CURNOW	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, TATE JA and GINNANE AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 November 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 April 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 70	First Revision: 28 April 2015, [36] & [54]
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2013] VSC 268 (Pagone J)

---

DEFAMATION – Publication of defamatory material on website – Whether award of damages so low as to be inappropriate – Whether search for sole cause – Whether aggravated damages should have been awarded – Whether interest should have been ordered – Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 followed – Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc LLC [2012] VSC 88 and Lower Murray Urban & Rural Water Corporation v Di Masi [2014] VSCA 104 considered – Defamation Act 2005, s 34 – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 60 – Appeal allowed.

COSTS – Leave to appeal against costs order on basis applicant was not given opportunity to refer to an offer of compromise – Costs order interim only – Effect of a pending application pursuant to s 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants/Respondents Jeffrey and Curnow	Mr A G Southall QC with Ms F C Spencer	Ken Smith & Associates
For the Respondent/Applicant Giles	Mr J A Ribbands with Ms K Weston-Scheuber	Barristers Duty Scheme

WARREN CJ
TATE JA:

Introduction and summary

David Jeffrey (‘Jeffrey’) and Thomas Curnow (‘Curnow’) were defamed by statements made by Virginia Giles (‘Giles’) on a website Giles created (‘the website’). A judge of the Trial Division of this Court, in proceedings for defamation brought by Jeffrey and Curnow against Giles, made findings that statements on the website were defamatory and awarded damages.[1] Jeffrey and Curnow now appeal against the award of damages as in effect manifestly inadequate;[2] that is, as not constituting the appropriate vindication of their reputations or exhibiting the appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained and the damages awarded, as required by s 34 of the Defamation Act 2005. In turn, Giles seeks leave to appeal against the order the judge made that she pay the costs of Jeffrey and Curnow in the proceeding they brought against her, principally on the basis that she was not afforded an opportunity to refer the judge to an offer of compromise she had made. She does not appeal the finding of defamation.[3]
[1]David Jeffrey v Virginia Giles [2013] VSC 268 (‘Reasons’).
[2]Jeffrey and Curnow’s appeal is brought pursuant to an extension of time granted on 20 September 2013. Costs of the application were reserved. The application was commenced after Giles sought leave to appeal the costs order made.
[3]Orders were made on 20 September 2013 for Giles’ leave application to be heard at the…

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 Jeffrey v Giles

Details

AGLC: Jeffrey v Giles [2015] VSCA 70
Case: [2015] VSCA 70
Decision Date: 24 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeffrey v Giles involved the plaintiff, Mr Jeffrey, suing Mr Giles for defamation arising from comments published on a website. Mr Giles admitted to publishing the comments but denied they were defamatory. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on the quantum of damages awarded to Mr Jeffrey and the refusal to award aggravated damages, interest, and leave to appeal against a costs order.

The legal issues before the court were whether the award of damages was so low as to be inappropriate, whether the court should have sought a sole cause of the injury, whether aggravated damages should have been awarded, and whether interest should have been ordered. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriateness of the costs order in light of an offer of compromise and the implications of a pending application under section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The court found that the damages awarded were insufficient, as they did not adequately reflect the harm caused to Mr Jeffrey's reputation. The court considered relevant precedents, including Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc LLC, and Lower Murray Urban & Rural Water Corporation v Di Masi, in assessing the appropriate level of damages. It was concluded that aggravated damages should have been awarded given the manner of publication and the impact on Mr Jeffrey. Interest on the damages was also deemed appropriate. However, the court refused leave to appeal the costs order, finding that the applicant had not been given an opportunity to refer to an offer of compromise and that the costs order was interim in nature, pending a section 29 application.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the court increasing the damages awarded to Mr Jeffrey, ordering aggravated damages and interest, and declining to grant leave to appeal the costs order.

Orders