Petrov v Do - [2012] NSWSC 1382

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Petrov v Do [2012] NSWSC 1382
Hearing dates: 1 February 2012
Decision date: 19 November 2012
Before: Simpson J
Decision:
(1)Verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant in the sum of $175,000;
(2)The defendants pay the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - claim by plaintiff for damages in defamation - default judgment entered - assessment of damages - Defamation Act 1995
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 1995
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Mise Petrov also known as Mila Petrovski (Plaintiff)
Most Do (First Defendant)
Peco Ivanovski (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
D Sachs (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Plaintiff)
N/A (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2008/289678

Judgment

In these proceedings the plaintiff, Mise Petrov (aka Mila Petrovski), claims damages in defamation arising out of a publication in a Macedonian language newspaper ("Utrinski Vesnik") on or about 14 February 2008.

Mr Petrov sues Most Do, a corporation that was the publisher of Utrinski Vesnik, and Peco Ivanovski, as the source of material contained in the newspaper which Mr Petrov claims was defamatory.

Although both defendants have been duly served, neither has entered an appearance or filed a defence. Accordingly, default judgment has been entered, and the matter has proceeded by way of assessment of damages. I can recite the facts briefly.

Mr Petrov is of Macedonian origin. He migrated to Australia in January 1970, at the age of 19. He was married to Magdalena Petrov. In Australian he settled in the Illawarra region where he worked as a labourer and then as a machine fitter, for which he apparently had obtained qualifications in Macedonia. At some time in the 1990s he was injured in an accident and has since been in receipt of an invalid pension.

There is a large Macedonian community in the Illawarra region. Mr Petrov has devoted his time, at least since retirement, to giving assistance of various kinds to members of that community, especially those with limited (or no) English language skills. He acted as interpreter for the Bishop of the Macedonian Church, including during a five week special delegation from Macedonia. Mr Petrov was well known, well respected, and well liked.

One of the persons to whom Mr Petrov rendered assistance was Mrs Trena Ivanovska, who Mr Petrov appears to have met in about 2003, at the request of a local shop owner concerned for her welfare. Mrs Ivanovska was aged about 75 years, and was in poor health and somewhat neglected, undernourished and emaciated. Mr Petrov assisted her by doing her shopping, cleaning, gardening, and taking her to medical appointments, and providing companionship to her. He purchased food for her which he paid for out of his own limited funds. He arranged for relatives living in Macedonia to visit her, and appears to have arranged for her, on one occasion, to travel to Macedonia. Although Mrs Ivanovska had two sons living very close to her home, Mr Petrov was not aware of their visiting or providing any care…

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 Petrov v Do

Details

AGLC: Petrov v Do [2012] NSWSC 1382
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1382
Decision Date: 19 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Petrov v Do arose from an action by the plaintiff, Petrov, against the defendant, Do, seeking damages for defamatory statements made by Do. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had published defamatory statements about him, which led to his reputation being harmed. The defendant did not appear in court to defend the action, resulting in a default judgment being entered against Do.

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment of the appropriate quantum of damages for the defamation claim. Under the Defamation Act 1995, the court was required to consider the extent of the harm caused by the defamatory statements, the nature of the defamation, and any mitigating factors that might be relevant. The court had to determine the amount of general damages to compensate Petrov for the injury to his reputation and any special damages that could be directly attributed to the defamation.

The court acknowledged that a default judgment had been entered and, in the absence of a defence, it had to rely on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The court found that the defamatory statements were serious and had caused significant harm to Petrov's reputation. In assessing the damages, the court considered the nature and extent of the publication, the impact on Petrov's personal and professional life, and the likelihood of the statements being republished. Given the default judgment and the lack of evidence from Do, the court awarded Petrov general damages and costs. The final orders of the court included a monetary award to Petrov for the defamation suffered, along with an order for Do to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Orders