JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27, 28 February, 1, 2, 5, 6 & 20 March, 9 & 16 April 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 August 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Moroney v Zegers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 446

---

DEFAMATION — Publication — Defendant falsely denied publication.

DEFAMATION — Defences — Justification — Particulars of justification incapable of meeting sting of imputations — Particulars not established on evidence — Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 25.

DEFAMATION — Defences — Qualified privilege — Where publication denied — Where publication anonymous — Common law qualified privilege — No duty or reciprocity of interest — Statutory qualified privilege — Publication not reasonable —Defendant actuated by malice — Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 30.

DEFAMATION — Damages — Defendant aggravated plaintiffs’ damage in circumstances of publication and since publication — Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 34.

DEFAMATION — Other remedies — Injunction — Special circumstances warranting imposition of injunction.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Castelan	Peter Cooper, Lawyer and Migration Agent
For the Defendant	Mr G Mukherji (27-28 February, 1, 2, 5, 6 & 20 March 2018)	Davies Elliot (27-28 February, 1, 2, 5, 6 & 20 March 2018)
Mr J Stavris (9 & 16 April 2018)	Cahills Solicitors (9 & 16 April 2018)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

Publication.......................................................................................................................................... 3

The defendant’s credit...................................................................................................................... 6

Identification.................................................................................................................................... 24

Imputations....................................................................................................................................... 26

The first publication.......................................................................................................... 27
The second publication..................................................................................................... 28
The third publication........................................................................................................ 28
The fourth publication...................................................................................................... 29
The fifth publication.......................................................................................................... 30
The sixth publication......................................................................................................... 30
The seventh publication.................................................................................................... 32
The eighth and ninth publication.................................................................................... 35

Summary of imputations........................................................................................................... 36

Are the imputations defamatory?................................................................................................. 37

Defences............................................................................................................................................. 38

Truth.............................................................................................................................................. 38
The membership suspension claim................................................................................. 44
The Stoops motion claim.................................................................................................. 45
The Eagle Park claim......................................................................................................... 46
The legal costs and Mr Lemm claim............................................................................... 47
The capitation funds claim............................................................................................... 48
VicShooter claim................................................................................................................ 50

Qualified privilege...................................................................................................................... 51

Damages............................................................................................................................................. 56

Compensatory damages - principles........................................................................................ 56
The extent of publication.................................................................................................. 58
Seriousness of the sting..................................................................................................... 61

Evidence of reactions of individual plaintiffs......................................................................... 62
Mr Jack Wegman............................................................................................................... 62
Aggravation........................................................................................................................ 64
Mr Denis Moroney............................................................................................................ 65
Mr Ross Farmer.................................................................................................................. 65
Mr Lance Eastwood........................................................................................................... 66
Mr Andrew Hepner........................................................................................................... 66
Mr David Schereck............................................................................................................ 67
Mr Greg Moon................................................................................................................... 67
Mr Luke Silverback........................................................................................................... 68
Mr Geoffrey Kuyken......................................................................................................... 69
Others who received the emails...................................................................................... 69

Aggravation................................................................................................................................. 70
Assessment................................................................................................................................... 74

Injunction.......................................................................................................................................... 75

Other orders...................................................................................................................................... 76

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiffs claim damages against the defendant in relation to the alleged publication of eight emails and one related conversation.

For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that certain publications were defamatory of each of the plaintiffs, and none of the defences relied upon by the defendant have been made out.

I have assessed the damages to which each plaintiff is entitled as follows –

(a) Denis Moroney - $75,000;

(b) Gregory Moon…

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 Moroney v Zegers

Details

AGLC: Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446
Case: [2018] VSC 446
Decision Date: 16 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Moroney, brought a defamation claim against Zegers before the County Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from statements made by Zegers on social media that were alleged to have defamed Moroney. The court had to determine whether Zegers' statements constituted defamation, and if so, whether any defences applied, and the appropriate remedies to be awarded.

The legal issues before the court included whether Zegers' denial of making the statements constituted a false publication, whether the particulars provided by Zegers could justify the imputations made, and whether qualified privilege applied to the communications. The court also needed to consider whether Zegers' actions had aggravated the defamation and whether an injunction was warranted.

The court found that Zegers' denial of publication was itself defamatory, as it falsely implied that Moroney had made unverified claims. The court held that the particulars provided by Zegers did not meet the sting of the imputations and were not established on the evidence. As for qualified privilege, the court found that there was no common law qualified privilege because there was no duty or reciprocity of interest, and the statutory qualified privilege did not apply as the publication was not reasonable and Zegers was actuated by malice. The court also found that Zegers had aggravated the defamation through their conduct after the initial publication and ordered an injunction to prevent further defamatory statements.

The court ordered Zegers to pay damages to Moroney and granted an injunction against Zegers making further defamatory statements about Moroney. The precise amounts of damages and the terms of the injunction were determined by the court based on the evidence presented.

Orders