Pavlovic v Karzon

Pavlovic v Karzon involved an appeal against findings of defamation and malice made by the District Court of Queensland. The primary issue was whether the trial judge erred in determining that the defamatory emails sent by Ms Pavlovic to members of the body corporate committee were not published under qualified privilege at common law, and whether the trial judge was correct in concluding that Ms Pavlovic acted with malice. The second issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding that Ms Pavlovic acted with malice in sending the defamatory emails. The trial judge found that the communications were defamatory and that there was no occasion of qualified privilege because the recipients had no relevant interest in receiving the communication. The trial judge also found that Ms Pavlovic acted with malice, as she did not attempt to verify the truth of the defamatory statements, used spiteful language, and was in a separate dispute with Mr Karzon. The Court of Appeal found that the application for leave to appeal was filed out of time but granted an extension due to a delay in receiving counsel's advice. However, the application for leave to appeal was ultimately refused. The Court held that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding qualified privilege and malice. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the applications.