Suzy David v David Tiglath Chibo

[2006] NSWSC 1257

CITATION:	Suzy David v David Tiglath Chibo [2006] NSWSC 1257
HEARING DATE(S):	05.10.06
JUDGMENT DATE :	24 November 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholas J
DECISION:	Para 60
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION - assessment - damages - aggravated compensatory damages for falsity of imputations and subsequent publications
LEGISLATION CITED:	Defamation Act 1974, s 46, s 46A
CASES CITED:	Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia v Chibo [2005] NSWSC 917 Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027 Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1992-1993) 178 CLR 44 Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176 Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384 Markovic v White [2004] NSWSC 37 Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327 Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
PARTIES:	Suzy David - plaintiff David Tiglath Chibo - defendant
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20101/05
COUNSEL:	G M McGrath - plaintiff Ex parte - defendant
SOLICITORS:	Michael Jokovic & Associates - plaintiff Ex parte - defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

Nicholas J

24 November 2006

20101/05 Suzy David v David Tiglath Chibo

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: The plaintiff Miss Suzy David, a solicitor and prominent member of the Assyrian community in Sydney, sues the defendant in respect of three publications. These proceedings are for the assessment of damages only.

2 The first publication complained of was published by the defendant in the edition of “Zinda Magazine” of 11 January 2005 under the heading “The Hood, the Bad, & the Holy”. It was also published on the magazine’s website, and also by means of an email sent by the defendant on 15 January 2005 to persons in New South Wales and Victoria.

3 The plaintiff claims that the Zinda article carries the following imputations:

(a) Suzy David was one of the main people responsible for the implementation of the biggest financial swindle of the Assyrian community in modern history.

(b) Suzy David was one of the main architects of a scheme which she knew to be fraudulent.

(c) For her own benefit Suzy David became involved in a scheme which she knew to be a fraud on her community.

(d) Suzy David orchestrated a crime.

(e) Suzy David is the sort of person who might support a fraudulent scheme.

(f) Suzy David arranged a tontine contact for a secret signatory bank account in Israel to hide much of the money missing from Karl Suleman’s frauds.

(g) Suzy David made arrangements to hide money defrauded by Karl Suleman.

(h) Suzy David lied about the result of her efforts to publicise the Assyrian genocide.

(i) Suzy David lied by sending out press releases which she knew to be false.

4 The article is set out in full in Schedule A to the statement of claim and is exhibit D. The following is a sufficient summary for present purposes. It purports to be a report of an investigation into the collapse in November 2001 of the business known as Karl Suleman Enterprises. It purports to demonstrate that those associated with the operation of the business were involved in what it described as the biggest financial swindle against the Assyrian community in modern history, and identifies those said to be responsible for its implementation. Those prominently identified include the plaintiff who was said to have approved and encouraged the implementation by one Mr Karl Suleman of a Ponzi scheme said to have been set up to swindle trusting members of the Assyrian community.

5 The plaintiff was described as Mr Suleman’s legal advisor and lover, and as one who helped him establish and orchestrate the Ponzi scheme. It alleged that she was one of the main architects of the scheme and ensured that she and her family would financially benefit from it. On p 9 of the article there is a section which specifically refers to the plaintiff and includes her photograph. On p 4, under the sub-heading “A Family Affair” the article describes the alleged close involvement of her, her brother Fred, and their law firm, Dominic David Stamfords, in the affairs of Mr Suleman and the operations of his companies. It included the following:

“Evidence of just how intertwined Suzy and Fred David had become in the scheme was revealed during court examinations made with Mrs Maria Azar who invested $25,000 AUS in KSE but after discussions with Richard Azar decided to cancel the investment and was repaid not by a KSE account but drawn on an account of Dominic David Stamfords. More evidence was revealed in May 2002 when the KSE liquidator also revealed it had recovered $890,000 from a trust fund controlled by law firm Dominic David Stamfords.
…
With the tacit support of the major secular Assyrian organizations and Churches in Sydney secured, with the help of Suzy David and Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia, the job of winning over the people would next begin”.

On p 7, under the sub-heading “Damage Control” is included the following:

“Meanwhile the investigation continued. In an attempt to track down the missing $65 million Mr Weston uncovered a serious of questionable overseas transactions and, he continued “After liaising with our lawyers, we have moved to secure worldwide asset freezing orders for the named parties”.
With the liquidators busy chasing after the agents of the scheme had the architects of the scheme arranged for much of the missing money to be smuggled into an Israeli bank account? According to one of Karl Suleman’s relatives, who did not wish to be identified, Suzy David left nothing to chance, ensuring that a Tontine contact was arranged for a secret signatory bank account in Israel. This is a legal arrangement in which subscribers to a common fund share an annuity with the benefit of survivorship and the shares of the survivors increase as the subscribers die, until the whole goes into the last survivor”.

On p 12, under the sub-heading “Justice?” the article includes the following:

“Unlike the architects of the scheme, who were sophisticated enough to cover most of their tracks, the agents left a paper trail that could connect them to the scheme and have been the main parties pursued by the liquidators.
….
The justice awaited by the Assyrian community will most likely never be achieved. The architects of the scheme appear to have orchestrated the perfect crime. These unscrupulous agents preyed on trusted relationships in social, ethnic and religious groups. And they got away with ripping the Assyrian people off because the victims are still unwilling to continue legal action. In the Assyrian community this mindset coupled with the fact that two of the alleged instigators are considered “sacred cows” explains why most of the victims continue to remain silent on this crime.
The very same members of the Assyrian Church of the East who donated their time and money to build St. Hurmizd Assyrian Primary school … were swindled. The very same people who helped organise the Sydney Genocide conference in 2000 were deceived by Karl Suleman through Mar Meelis Zaia and Suzy David …
…
With Karl Suleman serving a 21 month prison sentence in Bathurst jail the onus remains upon the Assyrian community to continue through all legal avenues to ensure that all the architects and agents of this scheme are eventually brought to justice”.

6 The second publication complained of is an email of 15 January 2005 which is Schedule B to the statement of claim and is exhibit E. It refers the reader to the Zinda article as being a story of the plaintiff, Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia and Mr Suleman, and proceeds to say:

“Please distribute this link and article to all your family and friends so that our people are never fooled by such criminals again”.

7 The plaintiff claims that this publication carries the imputation that she is a criminal.

8 The third publication complained of is an email of 20 January 2005 which is Schedule C to the statement of claim and is exhibit F. It includes the following:

“Gaby, if the money that was stolen by Mar Meelis, his liar/lawyer cohort, Suzy David and their jailed friend Karl Suleman had been used in Atra we would’ve purchased dashta d’Ninweh by now.
Instead 2,000 Assyrian families lie financially crippled by who they thought was their spiritual leader.
Here’s another Bible quote that Mar Meelis should be aware of.
Matthew 7:15 – Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”.

9 The plaintiff claims that this publication, which I shall refer to as the “Assyrian Utensil” email, carries the imputation that she stole money.

10 On 16 March 2006 default judgment was entered. The assessment of damages proceeded upon the basis that the defendant was the publisher of the matters complained of, the imputations claimed in fact arise, that they are defamatory, and that there is no defence. In any event, had there not been judgment in default, there is ample material to support the finding that each publication in fact conveys the relevant imputations as claimed, and that each is defamatory of the plaintiff.

11 The affidavits of Michael Jokovic, solicitor, of 18 July 2006 and Gregory John Richards, process server, of 29 September 2006 were read as to the steps taken to inform the defendant that the date set down for the hearing of the assessment of damages was 5 October 2006. The evidence enables me to find that reasonable efforts were made to inform the defendant of the date. There was no appearance for the defendant when the matter was called outside the court before the commencement of the hearing before me.

12 The plaintiff claims compensatory damages including aggravated damages. The plaintiff gave oral evidence, and also relied upon her affidavits. She also relied upon the affidavit evidence of Louren David, Marilyn Oshana, and Samir Yousif.

The plaintiff

13 The plaintiff is 45 years of age. She was born in Iran and moved to Australia in 1970. She completed bachelor degrees in economics and law and masters degree in law, and was admitted as a solicitor in 1985. She presently practices as the principal in the law firm David Legal, in Fairfield, New South Wales.

14 Since childhood the plaintiff has been actively involved in the affairs of the Assyrian community. From 1977 until about 1989 she was a part-time broadcaster on radio 2EA, now SBS radio. In 1993 she helped establish the Assyrian Australian National Federation which is an umbrella body for Assyrian organisations in New South Wales, and was its pro bono legal advisor until 2003. In 1995 she helped establish The Assyrian Australian Academic Society, and later became its president and was instrumental in obtaining donations and grants for its operations. Between 1984 and 2004 she represented Assyrians before members of Commonwealth and State parliaments, and in dealing with government officials.

15 The plaintiff believes she is the first Assyrian to become a lawyer in Australia. She has continuously practiced as a solicitor since about 1985, and has provided legal services pro bono and made other contributions to many Assyrian community, social, sporting, and religious organisations. On three occasions between 1995 and 2000 she represented Assyrians at the United Nations in Geneva in the Working Group on Minorities and the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. She presented the United Nations with submissions relating to the then current situation of Assyrians in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime.

16 The plaintiff has also been prominent in local affairs. She was appointed a councillor of the Customer Council of the Ethnic Affairs Commission in 1995 and 1996. In 1998 she was appointed Fairfield City Citizen of the Year, and in 1999 was elected secretary to the Fairfield City Chamber of Commerce. In 2002 she was awarded the Australian Centenary of Federation medal for contributions made to Australian Society. Over the years she has raised funds for numerous Assyrian and non-Assyrian charities, including Westmead Children’s Hospital, and has herself made substantial donations to them.

17 The plaintiff estimates that in Australia the Assyrian population is about 50,000, with about 40,000 living in the area of Fairfield.

18 She regards her reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity as paramount, and of critical importance for her work as a solicitor and as a community representative.

19 Louren David is a member of the Assyrian community and a cousin of the plaintiff. She gave evidence of the high reputation of the plaintiff in this community. Marilyn Oshana is a member of this community and is a librarian at the Fairfield City Library. Her evidence was that the plaintiff has a very high profile in, and is very highly regarded by, members of the Assyrian community in Australia. Samir Yousif is also a member of this community, and is a businessman in Fairfield. He has known the plaintiff for about 22 years and has continuously worked with her for various community and welfare programmes for Assyrians and Chaldeans. He has often referred friends and family to her, and to her legal firm, as he regards her as competent, trustworthy, and conscientious. He said that in the Assyrian community she has a reputation as a “role model”.

The impact of the publications

20 On about 13 January 2005 the plaintiff was in her office when she was handed a copy of the Zinda article by her sister-in-law, Sabrina Jajoo. As she read it she began to feel numb, nauseous, upset and depressed. It caused her to vomit. She left the office and spent a few hours by herself crying. She went home, and to bed, but was unable to sleep that night.

21 The plaintiff felt helpless and frustrated that she could not compel the publisher to remove the publication from the internet or to publish a retraction or apology, and that there was nothing she could do to stop the damage to her reputation. During the next few weeks she had feelings of anxiety, distress, and despair. Her concern was that all her efforts in building up a legal practice, and her commitment to the Assyrian community over many years had been destroyed. She became withdrawn, did not wish to speak to people, was unable to concentrate on work, and had difficulty sleeping and eating.

22 She says that since publication the sense of hurt recurs. Her sleep pattern has been disturbed. She has lost interest in leisure and sporting activities, and has put on weight. She feels uncomfortable in her neighbourhood, which is predominantly Assyrian. Her involvement in community affairs has substantially lessened, as has her social life. She no longer attends Assyrian functions, and has perceived that she is not as welcome as she had been prior to publication.

23 The plaintiff gave evidence of a number of clients who withdrew instructions from her firm, referring to examples in about April and May 2005, and subsequently. She referred to occasions where clients, or those associated with them, came into the office and shouted that she was not to be trusted as she was a thief, or that those in the firm were crooks. She says that during 2006 there has been a general downturn in her work in the office, and that there has been a necessity to reduce staff numbers. She attributes this situation to the impression conveyed by the publication to its readers that she is the holder of Mr Suleman’s money and has transferred it to Israel for the benefit of herself and her family, and that she was the architect of the scheme which caused such financial devastation in the Assyrian community.

24 The plaintiff remains aware that the article continues to be published online, despite requests that it be removed.

25 The plaintiff gave evidence of her concern at the reaction of a long time friend and associate, Mr Hermiz Shahen. He told her that he knew there was no truth in the Zinda article but that it would be very damaging to her and to the Assyrian Universal Alliance. She felt he was avoiding her, and his reaction made her uncomfortable.

26 Ms Oshana described Zinda as an online magazine which is published weekly and is widely read by, and influential among, the Assyrian community. She said that the article raised doubts in her mind about the plaintiff, and that several people expressed to her their doubts after reading it.

27 Mr Yousif stated that he heard people talking about the article, and making comments to the effect of the imputations. He said that many of his clients whom he referred to the plaintiff’s firm refused to go to it, and made similar comments.

28 Louren David observed that since publication of the Zinda article the plaintiff has been very reserved and depressed. She heard people discussing the article in terms adverse to the plaintiff, which indicated to her that they accepted that its allegations about her were true.

29 On or about 15 January 2005 the plaintiff read the email of that date, the second publication sued upon. It was sent to her by Mr Shahen. Upon reading it she felt nervous and upset. She feared that by sending it the defendant was ensuring that the Zinda article would be widely read by members of the Assyrian community. She felt it was grossly defamatory of her to say she was a criminal, which was false.

30 On about 20 January 2005 the plaintiff was referred to the “Assyrian Utensil” email by Mr Rameil Jajoo. Upon reading it, she felt extremely distressed, frustrated, and that the defendant’s defamatory attacks could not be stopped. She knew that many Assyrians were likely to read it, and it was likely to promote readership of the Zinda article. She believed it was fundamentally defamatory to state that she stole money, which was false.

31 By letter of 21 January 2005 the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant in respect of the Zinda article. They pointed out that the allegations in it were false, and demanded its removal from the internet, and the publication of a retraction and apology by 24 January 2005. By letter of 28 January 2005 the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant in respect of the email of 15 January 2005. They asserted that the publication was false, defamatory and highly damaging, demanded publication of a retraction and apology and a list of recipients by 2 February 2005. There has been no reply to these letters.

32 In her affidavit of 20 September 2006 the plaintiff gave evidence of publications by the defendant, under the name “Tiglath”, on the internet website

33 The evidence shows that 15 publications (the “Tiglath” items) were made on different dates between 15 January 2005 and 9 July 2006. I find that the contents of each publication directly or indirectly referred to the plaintiff and to the Zinda article, and the allegations made in it. The following extracts from a sample of these publications provide a sufficient indication of the flavour and content of them all:

(a) 18 January 2005:

“AUA removes Suzy David
…
When you slap around a tassle (sic) of Jews, 2 Assyrian lawyers and one Bishop you need to be very careful what you say and how you say it.
You’ll notice that the article contained eye witness statements and newspaper and court quotes sandwhiched (sic) between open ended questions.
…
I’m currently arranging with Wilson Younan to speak on his Friday radio programme where I intend to openly challenge Suzy David, Fred David, Mar Meelis et al to an open live debate”.

(b) 23 January 2005:

“We’ll (sic) it’s about time …
…
I was beginning to think she’d never take the bait.
I’m 95% convinced that this is a scare tactic used by her to intimidate and silence the media.
…
I talked to this woman in August 2001. I asked her if this KSE scheme was legitimate. Now this is the key to the entire litigation. She told me at that time that she was pretty much in charge of all of Karl Suleman’s businesses and up to that point in time she had heard of no complaints regarding this entire scheme. According to the KSE examinations this was a total fabrication.

If it does get to court it will be her word against mine and with the article’s evidence we can easily prove that she implied to me that she was in charge of this scheme.
I look forward and pray that this does go to court.
I will follow in the same footsteps as the famous McLibel case.
…
Every time you go for a bank loan, make a business deal, or research your history you people will go down in infamy as the dishonest scum you truly are.
You will regret ever having heard my name”.

(c) 24 January 2005:

“Now we KNOW they are crooks!!! Jackie ran to a lawyer immediately too. Tiglath, believe me, … they do NOT want to sue. But … if you own anything they can make you sweat. If you own nothing … tell them to fuck off. There is NO WAY they could ever win such a suit … ever …. and they know it.
This weekend I slept the sleep of the righteous. Which is more than I can say for all of these corrupt liars and thieves.
…
It’s Tiglath Vs Suzy David, her half-wit brother, the corrupt Mar Meelis, Karl Suleman, the 5 Jews and the 20 agents”.

(d) 7 June 2006:

“Open Letter to Suzy David
…
Suzy David you are one of the most disgraceful leaders the Assyrian community has ever had the misfortune to produce. My original article “The Hood, the Bad and the Holy” was targeted mostly towards you. I never dreamt that that Mar Meelis would step into the trap we had laid before you.
And for the past year we have backed off you and focussed on Mar Meelis. We also knew that you were recovering from bowel cancer and the last thing I’d do is kick a dog when it’s down. Well you appear to have recovered from the chemo-therapy. For that I’m glad. It means that I can stop pulling my punches with you.
Be prepared for an article that will make Mar Meelis look like a boy scout in comparison”.

34 The plaintiff swears that each of the imputations conveyed by the Zinda article, the email of 15 January 2005 and the “Assyrian Utensil” email of 20 January 2005 are false. She impressed me as a witness of truth and I accept her evidence generally.

Principles

35 Section 46(2) Defamation Act 1974 (the Act) provides that damages for defamation shall be the damages recoverable “in accordance with the common law, but limited to damages for relevant harm”. “Relevant harm” is defined as “harm suffered by the person defamed” (s 46(1)(a)).

36 Section 46(3)(a) provides that damages for defamation shall not include exemplary damages, and sub-para (b) provides that such damages “shall not be affected by the malice or other state of mind of the publisher at the time of the publication complained of or at any other time, except so far as that malice or other state of mind affects the relevant harm”.

37 In Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327, Hayne, J observed (para 60):

“The three purposes to be served by an award of damages for defamation are identified in the joint reasons in Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd : (i) consolation for the personal distress and hurt caused to the appellant by the publication; (ii) reparation for harm done to the appellant’s personal, and in this case, professional reputation; and (iii) the vindication of the appellant’s reputation. As pointed out in Carson : the first two purposes are frequently considered together and constitute consolation for the wrong done to the appellant; vindication looks to the attitudes of others”.

38 His Honour went on to point out (para 67) that assigning a money sum as sufficient to remedy personal distress, hurt and harm to reputation and to vindicate a plaintiff’s reputation translates losses which have no market value into amounts of money. He said:

“… But in neither defamation nor in other cases of non-pecuniary loss can any standard of evaluation be employed except one that is described in qualitative and therefore necessarily imprecise terms. The damages that may be awarded “are such as the jury may give when the judge cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed, except the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man””.

39 I must also have regard to the requirement of s 46A(1) of the Act which requires the court “… to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the relevant harm and the amount of damages awarded”.

Section 46A(2) requires the court to take into account “… the general range of damages for non-economic loss in personal injury awards in the State …”.

40 As to the application of this section in this case, I respectfully agree with the view of Levine, J in Markovic v White [2004] NSWSC 37, para 35 that the real exercise is that provided for in s 46A(1), namely to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the relevant harm as provided on the evidence and the amount of damages awarded.

41 In Rogers (para 73) Hayne, J held that s 46A should not be understood as prescribing a particular, let alone a mathematical, relationship between the damages to be awarded for defamation and the damages for non-economic loss in personal injury awards. He said that it is of the first importance to recall the fundamental principle that the damages to be awarded for defamation must compensate for the effect of the defamation on the particular plaintiff.

42 In the assessment of compensatory damages for harm to reputation in a case such as this it is important to take into account the observations of Mahoney, ACJ in Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, p 193 that “… In some cases, a person’s reputation is, in a relevant sense, his whole life. The reputation of a clerk for financial honesty and of a solicitor for integrity are illustrations of this … the trustworthiness, actual or reputed of a professional colleague is a matter of a legitimate and ongoing interest”, and p 195 “In my opinion, the law should place a high value upon reputation and in particular upon the reputation of those whose work and life depend upon their honesty, integrity and judgment”. In Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500, Brennan, J held (p 507) that account may be taken of an especially adverse impact of the defamatory imputation upon the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of some group or class in the community”.

43 With respect to aggravated damages it is important to keep in mind that any award of aggravated damages must be confined to what is truly compensation for the relevant harm to the plaintiff caused by the defendant’s conduct and must not include any element of punitive damages. Conduct of the defendant from the time of publication until verdict is relevant (Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1992-1993) 178 CLR 44, pp 65-66; 71). Such conduct must be in some way unjustifiable, improper, or lacking in bona fides (Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497).

Assessment

44 The plaintiff’s claim is for compensatory damages for injury to feelings, harm to reputation, and for vindication. She claims aggravated compensatory damages for the publication of false imputations, the defendant’s refusal to apologise, and in respect of the conduct of the defendant in publishing the matters complained of knowing their contents to be untrue, alternatively reckless as to their truth or falsity.

45 Having regard to the whole of the evidence I find that prior to publication of the matters complained of the plaintiff held a settled reputation for honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in the Assyrian community and the wider Fairfield community in which she was involved.

46 The imputations in the Zinda article were grave allegations of criminal conduct, fraud, dishonesty, and involvement in a scheme which swindled the Assyrian community for the plaintiff’s benefit. The article had a wide readership among the 40,000 members of the Assyrian community, and was described as being influential among them. The evidence of Ms Oshana, Louren David, and Mr Yousif demonstrated the damaging impact of the publication upon readers who knew of the plaintiff.

47 The evidence of the downturn in the plaintiff’s legal practice after the publication supports the finding, which I make, that it caused substantial damage to her professional reputation, although no claim for special damages is made.

48 I find that the gravity of the imputations conveyed by the Zinda article was such that its publication would inevitably undermine the good reputation which the plaintiff had established by her involvement in public activities over many years. She is entitled to an award to fairly compensate her for this harm.

49 I find that the Zinda article caused the plaintiff great distress and emotional upset, and that her sense of hurt and despair continues to the present time. Her evidence enables me to find that the hurt to her feelings is seriously exacerbated by the fact that the Zinda article has not been removed from the internet and remains available to the public, in particular the Assyrian community, at any time. It is apparent from the defendant’s subsequent publications including the email of 15 January 2005 and the “Assyrian Utensil” email of 20 January 2005 that the Zinda article is likely to remain in circulation indefinitely. This situation has led to her feeling frustrated and helpless that she is unable to bring to an end what she describes as a “nightmare” resulting from the continuing harm suffered from the publication.

50 The plaintiff described the various ways in which publication of the Zinda article has adversely affected her. These included her loss of interest in social activities, and feeling unwelcome and uncomfortable among members of the Assyrian community. The plaintiff believes that the emotional upset caused by the publication exacerbated a pre-existing illness known as Crohn’s disease which, in March 2005, led to her having hospital treatment for about two weeks.

51 The imputation conveyed by each of the email of 15 January 2005 and the “Assyrian Utensil” email was an allegation of serious criminal conduct likely to result in significant injury to the plaintiff’s reputation. However, as I explained in Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia v Chibo [2005] NSWSC 917, paras 41, 43, care must be taken to avoid double compensation. It is necessary to keep in mind that the publications complained of occurred within a very short time of each other, were published by the same person to the same readership, and were defamatory of the plaintiff in respect of the same conduct. The plaintiff’s evidence as to harm to reputation and hurt to feelings was principally in respect of the effect of the Zinda article upon her.

52 In all of the circumstances, I should adopt the same approach to the task of assessment in respect of each publication as the approach taken by me in Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia paras 42, 43. Necessarily, it is important that the sum to be awarded in each case be sufficient to enable the plaintiff to point to it as a vindication of her reputation and to mark the baselessness of the defamation. (Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027; Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384.)

53 With respect to each publication I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim for an award of aggravated damages is made out. I find that the conduct of the defendant in publishing each is unjustifiable, lacking in good faith, and improper in the sense considered in Triggell. I find that the second and third publications and the “Tiglath” items may be used as evidence that the defendant was motivated to publish the Zinda article by a desire to injure the plaintiff.

54 In my opinion these publications demonstrate, just as she fears, that the defendant has persisted in, and is likely to continue, his attack upon her despite the institution of these proceedings. They also demonstrate his intention to continuously remind readers of the false allegations he has made in the publications sued upon. For example, it is self evident that the Tiglath item of 23 January 2005 was published in defiance of the letter from the plaintiff’s solicitors of 21 January 2005 in which, inter alia, legal proceedings were threatened if no retraction or apology was given. Furthermore, the Tiglath item of 7 June 2006 provides, in my opinion, strong support for the conclusion that the defendant is unlikely to have any regard to the court’s judgment in these proceedings and will continue repetition of the false allegations.

55 Such conduct improperly aggravated the harm done to the plaintiff by the Zinda article by keeping before the Assyrian community the false allegations conveyed by it and exacerbating the harm which it has caused to her. The conduct justifies an increase in the overall amount of compensatory damages to be awarded in respect of its publication.

56 I also take into account the falsity of the imputations in each publication sued upon and the hurt occasioned to the plaintiff by her awareness of that falsity.

57 In all the circumstances I find the conduct of the defendant has increased the overall hurt to the plaintiff from each publication and justifies an increase in the amounts which otherwise would have been awarded. Taking into account the factors to which I have referred I propose to award the plaintiff damages, including aggravated compensatory damages, in respect of each publication.

58 In respect of the Zinda article I propose to award a single verdict in respect of the 9 false imputations conveyed. For this publication I award the plaintiff damages in the sum of $160,000.00. In respect of the email of 15 January 2005 which carries the false imputation that she is a criminal, I award the plaintiff damages in the sum of $35,000.00. In respect of the “Assyrian Utensil” email of 20 January 2005 which carries the false imputation that she stole money, I award the plaintiff damages in the sum of $15,000.00. This represents a total of $210,000.00.

59 Interest should run from the date of the last publication, namely 20 January 2005, at the rate of 2 per cent. I have calculated interest on that basis, which amounts to the sum of $7,700.00.

Conclusion

60 The orders I make are:

(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the total sum of $217,700.00.

(2) The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

**********