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.

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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Suzy David v David Tiglath Chibo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 1257
Decision Date: 24 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Suzy David suing David Tiglath Chibo for defamation. Ms David alleged that Mr Chibo made defamatory statements about her in two publications. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the statements made by Mr Chibo were defamatory and, if so, whether they caused sufficient harm to warrant an award of damages.

The court considered the nature and content of the statements, the circumstances of their publication, and their effect on Ms David's reputation. The court held that the statements did indeed contain defamatory imputations, specifically that she was dishonest and involved in criminal conduct. These imputations were found to be false and harmful, leading to a finding of liability on the part of Mr Chibo. The court awarded aggravated compensatory damages, reflecting the falsity of the imputations and the harm caused by their subsequent publications.

The court found that the defamatory statements had caused significant harm to Ms David's reputation, both personally and professionally. The award of aggravated damages recognised the deliberate and malicious nature of Mr Chibo's actions. The court concluded that the total damages awarded should reflect the gravity of the defamatory acts and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The court ordered Mr Chibo to pay Ms David $150,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $50,000 in aggravated damages, making a total of $200,000. The court also ordered Mr Chibo to publish an apology on his website and social media platforms.

Orders