Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc & Anor
Case
•
[2010] VSC 215
•25 May 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc & Anor [2010] VSC 215
[2010] VSC 215
25 May 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court, Trkulja, the plaintiff, brought a defamation claim against Yahoo! Inc and another party, the defendants, over the publication of an article on the Internet crime site, CrimeNews.com.au. The plaintiff argued that the article defamed him by alleging he was shot by a "hitman" and was capable of being understood as implying that he was a member of the criminal underworld. The defendants argued that the publication was not defamatory.
The court had to decide whether the article published by the defendants was capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. The court also had to consider whether the publication was false and whether it conveyed a defamatory meaning through innuendo. The court examined the context of the article and the circumstances surrounding its publication to determine if it was defamatory.
The court found that the article was not capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. The court held that the article did not imply that the plaintiff was a member of the criminal underworld, and the innuendos pleaded by the plaintiff were not established. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for defamation was unsuccessful.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding. The court did not make any orders for costs between the defendants and their cross-claimant.
The court had to decide whether the article published by the defendants was capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. The court also had to consider whether the publication was false and whether it conveyed a defamatory meaning through innuendo. The court examined the context of the article and the circumstances surrounding its publication to determine if it was defamatory.
The court found that the article was not capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. The court held that the article did not imply that the plaintiff was a member of the criminal underworld, and the innuendos pleaded by the plaintiff were not established. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for defamation was unsuccessful.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding. The court did not make any orders for costs between the defendants and their cross-claimant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
False and true innuendos pleaded
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Google Inc v Trkulja [2016] VSCA 333
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Bateman
[2015] NSWCA 154
Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd
[2010] NSWDC 244
Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd
[2010] NSWDC 244
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond
[1990] HCA 33
Longmuir v KONSTANTOPOULOS
[2014] FCCA 162