Legal Research
Cases
Trott v Rajoo

Trott v Rajoo

Case [2020] WADC 144 13 November 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   TROTT -v- RAJOO [2020] WADC 144
CORAM:   BURROWS DCJ
HEARD:   10 & 11 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   13 NOVEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1393 of 2019
BETWEEN:   MATTHEW TROTT
First Plaintiff
LYNDAL TROTT
Second Plaintiff
AND
ANSUYA RAJOO
Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Assessment of damages - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

General damages of $20,000, aggravated damages of $10,000 awarded to the first plaintiff

General damages of $20,000, aggravated damages of $10,000 awarded to the second plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr R V Graham and Mr I W Priddis
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr R V Graham and Mr I W Priddis
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Vogt Graham Lawyers
Second Plaintiff	:	Vogt Graham Lawyers
Defendant	:	Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Accommodation West Pty Ltd v Aikman [2017] WASC 157
Armstrong v McIntosh [No 4] [2020] WASC 31
Barrow v Bolt [2014] VSC 599
Bowden v KSMC Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Hubba Bubba Childcare on Haig and Chapman [2019] NSWDC 98
Bristow v Adams [2011] NSWDC 11
Brown v Kirkpatrick (The Magistrates Court of South Australia, 31 January 2019)
Cantwell v Sinclair [2011] NSWSC 1244
Cao v Liu [2013] NSWDC 172
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Clarke v Larard [2018] QDC 247
Cripps v Vakras [2014] VSC 279
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 407
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd [2012] FCA 242
Ell v Milne (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 175
Enders v Erbas & Associates Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWDC 44
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] 2 AC 273; [2012] 4 All ER 913
French v Fraser (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1807
Giovannetti v New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1960
Gluyas v Tenana [2008] VCC 1161
Graham v Powell (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1319
Haddon v Forsyth [2011] NSWSC 123
Higgins v Sinclair [2011] NSWSC 163
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652
John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586; [1996] 3 WLR 593
Knell v Harris (No 5) [2018] WADC 177
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234; [1963] 2 All ER 151
Luke v Richardson [2014] WADC 27
Mallegowda v Sood (No 6) [2018] NSWDC 281
Maras v Lesses [2016] SADC 40
Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446
Oskouie v Maddox [2019] NSWSC 428
Osuamadi v Okoroafor [2011] NSWDC 1
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra [1998] 2 All ER 638
Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No 9] [2017] WASC 367
Raynor v Murray [2019] NSWDC 189
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Ryan v Premachandran [2009] NSWSC 1186
Sands v The State of South Australia [2015] SASCFC 36; [2015] 122 SASR 195
Schlaepfer v ASIC [2019] NSWSC 1644
Smith v Jones [2020] NSWDC 262
Smith v Lucht [2015] QDC 289
Smith v Stevens [2018] WASC 95
Stanton v Fell [2013]…

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.

Continue reading Trott v Rajoo

Details

AGLC: Trott v Rajoo [2020] WADC 144
Case: [2020] WADC 144
Decision Date: 13 NOVEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Trott v Rajoo, the plaintiff sought damages for defamation against the defendant, who had made allegedly defamatory statements during a public meeting. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, having already found the defendant's statements to be defamatory. The primary focus was on the assessment of the damages that should be awarded to the plaintiff for the harm caused by the defamatory statements.

The legal issues before the court were whether the damages awarded were adequate and whether the court should increase the amount based on the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff argued for an increase in damages, citing the severity and impact of the defamatory statements, while the defendant contended that the awarded damages were sufficient. The court had to weigh the evidence presented on the extent of the harm caused and the appropriate compensation for the defamation.

The court, after considering the evidence and arguments presented, concluded that the original damages awarded were appropriate. It found that while the defamatory statements were serious, the harm caused did not warrant a significant increase in the damages. The court emphasised that each defamation case is unique, and the assessment of damages must be tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the court upheld the original damages awarded, finding that no further adjustment was necessary.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond affirming the original damages award. The court's decision underscored the principle that defamation damages are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular circumstances and the impact of the defamatory statements on the plaintiff.

Orders