JUDGE:	PAGONE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 April 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	David Jeffrey & Anor v Virginia Giles
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 268

---

DEFAMATION – Publication of defamatory material on website – Whether published matter was likely to lead an ordinary reasonable person to think less of the plaintiffs – Injury to the plaintiffs – Distinction between impact of the defamatory material on the website and impact of the website as a whole and other conduct of the defendant – Effect of defamatory material on plaintiff’s physical health – Grapevine effect – Relevance of defendant’s understanding of “perjury” – Damages to bear an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm done - Aggravated damages – Whether defendant had a collateral motive in the maintaining the website – Whether defendant was seeking to inflate the value of the land - Defendant’s apology at trial - Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) s 34 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) r 40.10.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Plaintiffs

Mr A Southall QC with
Ms R Kaye

Ken Smith & Associates

Virginia Giles

Self-represented Defendant

HIS HONOUR:

David Jeffrey and Thomas Curnow sue Virginia Giles for defamation. On or about 10 June 2011, Virginia Giles obtained the domain name and created the website known as (“Quarry Fight website”) and from time to time uploaded and modified text on web pages associated with the domain name. Words appeared on the website from some date commencing in August 2011 which, on their natural and ordinary meaning, were claimed to be defamatory of Mr Jeffrey or Mr Curnow or both. In this proceeding Mr Jeffrey and Mr Curnow seek damages, including aggravated damages, a permanent mandatory injunction, interest and costs. The plaintiffs were represented at trial by Senior and Junior Counsel as well as solicitors. The defendant had been represented by lawyers up to 15 March 2013 who drew and settled her defence to the claim, but she was unrepresented at trial and conducted the proceeding, including giving evidence, cross examination of witnesses and making submissions, without professional legal, or other, assistance.

Mr Jeffrey was at all times a director and the operations manager of Casacir Pty Ltd (“Casacir”) which owns and operates a quarry business on land situated at Neerim North in Victoria. Mr Curnow is also a director of Casacir. Casacir employs approximately 40 employees across three quarries operating throughout the Gippsland region and has done so for many years. Mr Jeffrey was the third generation of a family in a construction, earthmoving and road building business which operated in the Latrobe Valley and was commenced by his grandfather. Mr Jeffrey has known Mr Curnow for some 25 years…

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 [2013] VSC 268
Case: [2013] VSC 268
Decision Date: 23 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeffrey v Giles involved a defamation dispute between the plaintiffs, the Jeffreys, and the defendant, Giles. The dispute arose from the publication of defamatory material on a website maintained by Giles, which the plaintiffs alleged harmed their reputation and caused them physical harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs sought damages for defamation, claiming that the publication of the defamatory material on the website was likely to lead an ordinary reasonable person to think less of them, thereby causing them injury. The court was required to determine whether the defamatory material had the effect of lowering the plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and whether the plaintiffs had suffered damage as a result.

The court considered the distinction between the impact of the defamatory material on the website and the impact of the website as a whole, as well as other conduct of the defendant. It held that the defamatory material was likely to harm the plaintiffs' reputation and cause them injury. The court also found that the defamatory material had a "grapevine effect," whereby it was likely to be disseminated beyond the initial audience, causing further harm to the plaintiffs. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his understanding of "perjury" was a collateral motive for maintaining the website, finding that the primary motive was to defame the plaintiffs. The court also found that the defendant was not seeking to inflate the value of the land.

The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, finding that they were entitled to an amount that bore an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm done. The court also awarded aggravated damages, finding that the defendant's conduct was egregious and warranted an enhancement of the damages. The court rejected the defendant's apology at trial as insufficient to mitigate the harm caused to the plaintiffs. The court made orders for the defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding.

Orders