SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Piscioneri v Brisciani Citation: [2015] ACTSC 106 Hearing Date: 15 October 2014 Decision Date: 6 May 2015 Before: Burns J Decision: Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is
ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of $82,000.00 in damages.Category: Principal Judgment Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW – Torts – Defamation – statements amounting to defamation – publication – damages – whether plaintiff is identifiable in the publications – whether publications amount to mere abuse – whether publications were trivial – whether defence of honest opinion applies – whether defence of
qualified privilege applies. Legislation Cited: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Chapter 9
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1179
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT)Cases Cited: Baffsky v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1991) 106 FLR 21
Bennette v Cohen (2005) 64 NSWLR 81
Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60
Bureya P/L v The Mackay Printing & Publishing Co P/L [2003]
QCA 284
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Browne (1948) 49 SR (NSW) 86
David Syme & Co v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234
Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Hayson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 763
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rickin (2003) 201 ALR 77
Megna v Marshall [2010] NSWSC 686
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR
632
Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369
Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Telford [1986] QB 1000
Ratcliffe v Evans [1982] 2 QB 524 (CA)
Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJQB 231
Steele v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348
Ware v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW)
180Texts Cited: LexisNexis, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (at 23 March 2015) 145 Defamation, ‘5 Honest Opinion and Fair Comment’ [145- 1950] Parties: Gabriella Jean Piscioneri (Plaintiff) Anthony Scott Brisciani (Defendant) Representation: Counsel Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)Solicitors Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)File Number: SC 859 of 2010 Burns J: Background 1. Between 1996 and 2007, the plaintiff owned and operated the criminal legal practice ‘G J Piscioneri and Co’ as a sole practitioner in New South Wales. The plaintiff is currently
unemployed. In early 2005, reports appeared in the media regarding criminal trials against Bilal Skaf and others who were charged with several counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent in New South Wales (the Skaf trial). Following the trial and subsequent convictions of the accused men, the jury foreperson, an acquaintance of the plaintiff, disclosed to the plaintiff that he and possibly other members of the jury had conducted a view of the crime scene after having been directed by the trial judge not to do so. The plaintiff reported this to the Court. The plaintiff was a practising solicitor in Queanbeyan, NSW at the time, but was not directly
involved in the Skaf trial. I note that the plaintiff’s conduct in…
Continue reading Piscioneri v Brisciani
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Piscioneri v Brisciani [2015] ACTSC 106
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 106
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to determine were whether the plaintiff was identifiable in the publications, whether the publications amounted to mere abuse, whether they were trivial, and whether the defence of honest opinion applied. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's conduct was protected by any other applicable defences.
The court found that the plaintiff was indeed identifiable in the publications, and they did not merely constitute abuse. The statements were not trivial, as they had caused significant harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The court further determined that the defence of honest opinion was not applicable because the defendant had not established that the statements were based on facts. The court rejected other defences raised by the defendant, ultimately concluding that the publications were defamatory.
The court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $82,000.00 in damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is
ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of $82,000.00 in damages.
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.