Larach v Urriola

Case [2009] NSWDC 97
CITATION: Larach v Urriola [2009] NSWDC 97
HEARING DATE(S): 9 - 13 and 26 February; 27 March 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
22 May 2009
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ
DECISION: (1) Judgment for the first plaintiff on the first publication in the sum of $10,000.
(2) Judgment for the first plaintiff for the second publication in the sum of $5,000.
(3) Judgment for the first plaintiff on the third publication in the sum of $5,000.
(4) Judgment for the second plaintiff on the third publication in the sum of $20,000.
(5) The parties bring in Short Minutes of Order concerning mathematically agreed interest calculations on the damages awards.
(6) Liberty to restore in relation to interest and costs.
(7) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
CATCHWORDS: Tort - defamation of corporation and director - defences of truth, contextual truth, comment, qualified privilege and triviality - damages - limits on damages available to corporations - whether director entitled to aggravated compensatory damages
LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), ss 13, 16, 22 and 46A
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 9, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 40
Defamation Act 1952 (UK), s 5
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 135, 136 and 140
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), s 58A
CASES CITED: Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2009] NSWCA 9
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130
ASIC v Rich (2006) 235 ALR 587
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 510
Bashford v Information Australia (2004) 218 CLR 366
Bell v Kingsbay Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 388
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1996) 185 CLR 183
Blacktown City Council v Hocking (2008) Aust Torts Rep, 81-956
Breen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 192
Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 127
Carson v John Fairfax (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspaper Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock (2007) 232 CLR 245
Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 80
D & L Caterers v D’Ajou [1945] KB 354
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 693
Dennis v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWCA 37
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Feo v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd [1999] 3 VR 417
Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (2006) 66 NSWLR 675
Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102
Harman v Home Department State Secretary; sub nom Home Office v Harman (ALLER) [1983] 1 AC 280
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine P/L [1984] 1 NSWLR 386
Holmes v Fraser [2008] NSWSC 570
Howden v Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 416
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v O'Shane [2005] NSWCA 164
Jones v Sutton (2004) 61 NSWLR 614
Kay v Chesser [1999] 3 VR 55
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234

Continue reading Larach v Urriola

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Larach v Urriola [2009] NSWDC 97
Case
[2009] NSWDC 97
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Larach v Urriola involves a defamation dispute between the plaintiffs, Mr. Larach and Mr. Williams, and the defendant, Mr. Urriola. The plaintiffs seek damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant regarding a business venture involving a corporation and its director. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant's statements were defamatory, the applicability of various defences such as truth, contextual truth, comment, qualified privilege, and triviality, as well as the scope of damages available to a corporation and its director in defamation cases.

The court addressed the defamatory nature of the statements and determined that they were indeed defamatory. Regarding the defences, the court found that the defendant's defence of truth was not applicable as the statements were not substantiated by evidence. The defence of contextual truth was also dismissed as the context did not alter the defamatory nature of the statements. The defence of comment was rejected since the statements were not based on facts but rather on opinions. Qualified privilege was not applicable as the statements were not made in a situation where there was a duty to communicate the information. The defence of triviality was denied as the statements had caused significant harm to the plaintiffs' reputations.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the defamatory publications. The first plaintiff, Mr. Larach, was awarded $10,000 for the first publication, $5,000 for the second, and $5,000 for the third. The second plaintiff, Mr. Williams, was awarded $20,000 for the third publication. The court also addressed the issue of aggravated compensatory damages, finding that the first plaintiff was not entitled to such damages as the evidence did not support the presence of aggravating factors. The final orders included the aforementioned damages awards, agreed interest calculations, liberty to restore for interest and costs, and the retention of exhibits for 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the first plaintiff on the first publication in the sum of $10,000. (2) Judgment for the first plaintiff for the second publication in the sum of $5,000. (3) Judgment for the first plaintiff on the third publication in the sum of $5,000. (4) Judgment for the second plaintiff on the third publication in the sum of $20,000. (5) The parties bring in Short Minutes of Order concerning mathematically agreed interest calculations on the damages awards. (6) Liberty to restore in relation to interest and costs. (7) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

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.