Lesses v Maras

The case of Lesses v Maras involves a dispute between two members of the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia Incorporated. Maras, the respondent, successfully sued Lesses, the appellant, for defamation. The trial judge found that three defamatory publications were made, each implying that Lesses was untrustworthy and did not care about the GOCSA churches. The court held that the imputations were conveyed and defamatory, and awarded damages of $75,000. The appeal against this decision seeks to challenge various findings of the trial judge, including the finding of malice and the denial of the defences of qualified privilege, truth, fair comment, and honest opinion.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant an order for security for costs. The court was required to balance the principle that security for costs is an exceptional remedy against the respondent’s right to enforce the judgment and the appellant’s impecuniosity. The court also had to consider the nature of the appeal and the merits of the arguments advanced by the parties.

The court found that the appeal was not hopeless and had moderate prospects of success. It noted that the main issue on appeal was the trial judge’s finding of malice, which was based on certain factual findings and admissions by the appellant. The court was satisfied that the appeal was bona fide and that there was no suggestion that the respondent’s conduct had caused the appellant’s impecuniosity. The court concluded that it was appropriate to order security for costs, given the appellant’s inability to pay costs if the appeal was unsuccessful, and ordered that the prosecution of the appeal be stayed until the appellant paid $25,000 into court.

The court ordered that the prosecution of the appeal is stayed until the appellant has paid into Court the sum of $25,000 to secure the respondent’s costs of the appeal. This order ensures that the respondent can enforce the judgment without the risk of the appellant being unable to pay costs if the appeal is unsuccessful.