Legal Research
Cases
Scali v Scali

Scali v Scali

Case [2015] SADC 172 21 December 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
SCALI v SCALI
[2015] SADC 172
Judgment of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
21 December 2015
DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - COSTS - OTHER MATTERS
The plaintiff claims that his brother, the defendant, defamed him in 11 videos posted on You Tube. He seeks damages, permanent injunctions and an apology. The defendant filed a defence and counter-claim in which he admitted making and posting the video clips; but he says that the matters asserted in those videos are true. His counterclaim was for damages for a range of matters including defamation.
Held:
1. The counterclaim is dismissed.
2. The videos give rise to defamatory imputations against the plaintiff.
3. The defence of justification is not made out.
4. The plaintiff is entitled to damages in the sum of $20,000 inclusive of interest.
5. The plaintiff is entitled to injunction.
Defamation Act 2005 s11, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 35, referred to.
Toomey v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 173; Waterhouse v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1987) 87 FLR 369; Sands v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (2010) SASC 202; Australian Defamation Law & Practice [10,001]; Farquhar v Bottom (1980) 2 NSWLR 380; Favell v Queensland Newspaper Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716; Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspaper Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519; Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485; Lewis v Daily Telegraph Limited op cit; Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 at 506; Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460; Cornes v Ten Group Pty Ltd & Ors (2011) 114 SASR 1 ; Mundey v Asksin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369; ; Bennette v Cohen (2005) 64 NSWLR 81; Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47 ; Howden v Truth & Sportsman (1937) 58 CLR 416; Potts v Moran (1976) 16 SASR 284 at 306; Edwards v Bell [1824] 1 Bing 403 at 409; Rogers v Nationwide News (2003) 77 ALJR 1739 at 1752, considered.

SCALI v SCALI
[2015] SADC 172
Introduction

The plaintiff Vincent Scali claims that his brother John Scali defamed him in 11 videos posted on You Tube. He issued proceedings in the minor civil action jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of South Australia on 12 February 2015 seeking damages and consequential orders. The defendant, John Scali, filed a defence and counter-claim on 13 March 2015 in which he admitted making and posting the video clips but he says that the matters asserted in those videos are true. The defendant’s counter-claim was for a range of matters and sought damages in the sum of $10.3 million. The proceedings were then transferred to the District Court.
For the reasons that I now publish I dismiss the counterclaim and I find that the plaintiff has been defamed by the defendant. I award the plaintiff damages in the sum of $20,000 and make a number of consequential orders.
Procedural Matters
The matter had a difficult progress through the Master’s…

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 Scali v Scali

Details

AGLC: Scali v Scali [2015] SADC 172
Case: [2015] SADC 172
Decision Date: 21 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scali v Scali involved a dispute between the parties regarding a defamatory statement made by one party against the other. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue was whether the defendant's statement was defamatory and whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The case also involved a dispute over costs associated with the litigation.

The court was required to determine whether the statement made by the defendant was defamatory and if it was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's conduct was vexatious and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an indemnity costs order. The court had to balance the right to freedom of speech with the protection of reputation.

The court found that the statement made by the defendant was defamatory and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The court held that the defendant's conduct was vexatious and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. The court found that the plaintiff's case was not frivolous or vexatious and that the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff to incur significant costs. The court held that the defendant's conduct was such that it warranted an indemnity costs order.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the defamation and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that the plaintiff's case was not frivolous or vexatious and that the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff to incur significant costs. The court held that the defendant's conduct was such that it warranted an indemnity costs order.

Orders