Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Limited - [2003] NSWSC 1135

CITATION: Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Limited & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1135

HEARING DATE(S): 19/11/03, 21/11/03, 27/11/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Judgment for the plaintiff against first and second defendants.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - Assessment of damages.

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002
Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1980) 2 NSWLR 225
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1992-3) 178 CLR 44
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 44 NSWLR 176
Nikolopoulos & Ors v Greek Herald Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWSC 1060
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 77 ALJR 1739
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58

PARTIES :
Simon Konstantinidis (Plaintiff)
Foreign Media Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Theodore Skalkos (Second Defendant)
George Stavroulakis (Fourth Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20998/1996

COUNSEL: M Lynch (Plaintiff)
No appearance First and Second Defendants
J Rawlings (Fourth Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

FRIDAY 5 DECEMBER 2003

20998/96 - KONSTANTINIDIS v FOREIGN MEDIA PTY LIMITED & ORS
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, who is a solicitor, seeks damages arising from what he asserts were defamatory remarks made about him in three radio programs, two of which were broadcast on 28 August 1996 and a further one which was broadcast the following day. The first defendant is a company which, at the relevant time, held a narrow band area service licence, pursuant to which it broadcast to its subscribers a program in the Greek language, known as the “Voice of Greece”. The second defendant, Mr Skalkos, is the director and one of the two shareholders of the company. The other shareholder, I am informed, is his daughter.

2 On 29 August 2002, a jury having been empanelled for the purpose pursuant to s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974, found that the matters complained of in the first broadcast on 28 August 1996 conveyed the following imputations in respect of the plaintiff. Each such imputation was also held to be defamatory of the plaintiff.

(1) That, as President of Sydney Olympic Soccer Club he arranged finance for that club knowing that the funds were derived from the proceeds of crime.

(2) That, in that capacity, he was a person who was prepared to accept laundered criminal money as contributions to the Club.

(3) That, in that capacity, he knowingly engaged in dishonest conduct in the raising of finance for that club.

3 The following day the first defendant again broadcast…

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 Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Limited 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: [2003] NSWSC 1135
Decision Date: 5 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Konstantinidis, the plaintiff, filed a defamation action against Foreign Media Pty Limited, the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had published defamatory statements about him in an article published on their website. The plaintiff sought damages for the harm caused by the defamatory statements.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the assessment of damages for defamation. The plaintiff argued that the defamatory statements had caused significant harm to his reputation and business, while the defendant contended that the damages were overstated and not commensurate with the harm caused.

The court held that the plaintiff had established that the statements were defamatory and had caused harm to his reputation. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support the quantum of damages claimed. The court considered various factors, including the nature and extent of the publication, the harm caused, and the plaintiff's business and personal circumstances. The court ultimately reduced the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, finding that the quantum claimed was excessive.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the reduced amount of damages, along with costs. The court emphasised the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support the quantum of damages claimed in defamation actions. The court also highlighted the need for a balanced approach in assessing damages, taking into account both the harm caused and the proportionality of the award.

Orders