Triguboff v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

The case of Triguboff v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd involved an interlocutory application by the respondents seeking a separate hearing on a specific question and the striking out of the applicant's claim. The applicant, Mr Triguboff, alleged defamation based on an article published by Fairfax Media that referred to his company, Meriton, without explicitly mentioning him. The legal issues centered around whether the article was reasonably capable of being about Mr Triguboff, given that it only referred to the company name, and whether the corporate veil could be pierced to hold the individual liable for defamation.

The court found that the article, while referring to Meriton, did not establish a link that would make it about Mr Triguboff. It held that an article about a company is not automatically about the owner unless there is a clear connection within the publication. The court further clarified that the notoriety of the individual behind the company does not suffice to advance an alter ego characterisation without showing that the company’s actions or conduct are connected to the individual. The court concluded that unless there was a proper reason to regard the publication as being about a natural person, the corporate veil remains intact under section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). Consequently, the court granted the separate question hearing and answered it in the negative, entering judgment for the respondents and awarding costs.

The final orders included granting the respondents’ application for a separate hearing on the question of whether the matter complained of was reasonably capable of being about Mr Triguboff. The court answered the separate question as “no”, entered judgment for the respondents, and ordered Mr Triguboff to pay the respondents' costs as assessed or agreed.