Szymczak v Balijepalli (No 2)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Szymczak v Balijepalli (No 2) [2019] FCA 1093

File number:

NSD 2355 of 2018

Judge:

LEE J

Date of judgment:

18 June 2019

Catchwords:

DEFAMATION – consideration of whether the alleged imputations were capable of being conveyed by the publication – where the respondent failed to file a defence or attend the hearing – where the respondent failed to attend Court in accordance with an order of the Court

DAMAGES – where applicant sought general compensatory damages for non-economic loss – where applicant sought aggravated damages – assessment of general or compensatory damages – consideration of appropriate and rational relationship between harm sustained by applicant from the publication and the amount of damages – quantification of damages

Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 41.01, 42.01, 42.14(3)

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 34

Cases cited:

Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; (2003) 216 CLR 327

Szymczak v Balijepalli [2019] FCA 234

Al Muderis v Duncan [2016] NSWSC 1726

Cerutti & Anor v Crestside Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QCA 33

Fraser v Business News Group Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 196

Graham v Powell (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 185

Wilson v Bauer Media [2017] VSC 521

Date of hearing:

18 June 2019

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Other Federal Jurisdiction     

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

33

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Castelan

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Slocombe Brand Lawyers

Counsel for the Defendant:

The respondent did not attend the hearing

ORDERS

NSD 2355 of 2018

BETWEEN:

DAVID SZYMCZAK

Applicant

AND:

ANANTH BALIJEPALLI

Respondent

JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 JUNE 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Judgment for the applicant against the respondent for $72,347.40.

2.The applicant have leave for a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the respondent in a form to be approved in accordance with r 41.05 of the Federal Court Rule 2011 (Cth).

3.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be taxed on an indemnity basis.

4.Liberty to restore the proceeding to the list on application by either party immediately upon execution of the warrant for the arrest of the respondent by notification to the Associate of Justice Lee.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from the transcript

LEE J:

1. This proceeding for defamation was called on for final hearing today. After being called outside Court three times, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. For reasons that will become evident, this is unsurprising.

2. On 4 April 2019, I noted that despite having been served with a defence, and at one stage being represented by solicitors, the respondent had not filed a defence. In those circumstances, I considered it appropriate that there be default judgment in favour of the applicant, and adjourned the matter for further hearing. In doing so, I was satisfied that the respondent was responsible for the impugned…