Legal Research
Cases
Polias v Ryall

Polias v Ryall

Case [2014] NSWSC 1692 28 November 2014

Defamation

Substantial Truth

Factual Determination

Defamation

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nicholas Polias v Tobin Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692
Hearing dates: 07 October 2014 - 10 October 2014
Decision date: 28 November 2014
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)Judgment for the plaintiff;
(2)The first defendant shall pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $125,000;
(3)The second defendant shall pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $130,000;
(4)The third defendant shall pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $50,000;
(5)The fourth defendant shall pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $35,000;
(6)The parties have liberty to address on interest and costs on a date to be set;
(7)The plaintiff to provide a Short Minutes of Order to reflect judgment in accordance with these reasons within 14 days of the date hereof.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - allegation of theft - only issue was substantial truth - factual determination - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Associated Newspaper v Dingle [1964] AC 371
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chappel v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (NSWCA 14 June 1984, unreported)
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
David v Abdishou [2012] NSWCA 109
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575
Haddon v Forsyth [2011] NSWSC 123
Holt v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 90; (2014) 86 NSWLR 96
Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons [2001] HCA 69; (2001) 208 CLR 388
Phillips v Robab [2014] NSWSC 1520
Rastogi v Nolan [2010] NSWSC 735
Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb [1982] HCA 4; (1982) 150 CLR 500
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nicholas Polias (Plaintiff)
Tobin Ryall (First Defendant)
Andy Hun Wei Lee (Second Defendant)
Sandy Jan (Third Defendant)
Rhys Gould (Fourth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
S. Chrysanthou/with B. Regener (Plaintiff)
M. Rollinson (First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Kalantzis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Phoenix Attorneys (First Defendant)
BPH Legal (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/161335
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff sues four defendants for damages arising from allegedly defamatory material in eight publications. Three publications relate to words said and the remainder relate to comments on Facebook.

Each of the defendants are alleged to have published different matters, some defendants allegedly having published more than one. It is therefore necessary to deal with the allegation against each defendant separately. Before doing so, it is necessary to note that the plaintiff and each of the defendants are poker players. The plaintiff attended a poker tournament in Las Vegas with the first defendant and others. The issues of fact in these proceedings revolve around an event that occurred in Las Vegas, and one later incident in Sydney.

Without, at this stage, determining the truth of any allegation, it is sufficient…

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 Polias v Ryall

Details

AGLC: Polias v Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1692
Decision Date: 28 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the plaintiff, Polias, sued Ryall for defamation. The basis of the defamation claim was an allegation made by Ryall that Polias had stolen money from a company. The case involved a factual determination about whether the statement was substantially true. The court was required to assess if the statement made by Ryall was, in substance, true, and if so, whether this justified the making of the statement.

The central legal issue was whether the court should focus on the principle behind the statement rather than the facts. The court needed to decide whether the truth of the statement was a defence to the defamation claim, particularly when the alleged defamatory statement was of a factual nature. The court considered whether the principle of substantial truth should be the sole determinant of the defamation claim, as opposed to other potential defences such as honest opinion or privilege.

The Federal Court concluded that the primary issue was the substantial truth of the statement made by Ryall. The court found that if the statement was substantially true, then it justified the making of the statement. The court rejected the notion that broader principles should be considered in determining the defamation claim. It held that where the issue was the substantial truth of the statement, this was the only matter to be considered. The court found that the statement was substantially true, and thus the defence of truth was available to Ryall. The defamation claim was dismissed.

Orders