Vaa v Barakat

Case [2017] NSWDC 300


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vaa v Barakat [2017] NSWDC 300
Hearing dates: 17 August 2017; 6 and 7 September 2017; 17 October 2017
Date of orders: 02 November 2017
Decision date: 02 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the defendant.
(2) Costs reserved.
(3) Liberty to restore in relation to costs.
(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Catchwords: TORT – defamation – plaintiff brings proceedings for publication of a poster on shop premises with her photograph and the word “thief” and for a conversation with a shop worker – whether each of the matters complained of was published – whether the second matter complained of was published to a third party – defences of justification, qualified privilege at common law and honest opinion – damages – method of assessment of claims where aggravated damages are sought – mitigation of damages
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 25, 31, 34, 35, 36 and 41
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 135 and 140
Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Burden [2005] NSWCA 174
Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130
Attrill v Christie [2007] NSWSC 1386
Beaven v Fink [2009] NSWDC 218
Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60
Blacktown City Council v Hocking (2008) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-956
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818
Cao v Liu [2013] NSWDC 172
Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1091
Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016] 1 Qd R 89
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Clarke [2013] NSWCA 272
Cripps v Vakras [2015] VSC 193
Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 295
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 693
Dillon v Boland; Dillon v Cush [2012] NSWCA 364
Dubois v R & V Bergin Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 309
Google Inc v Duffy [2017] SASCFC 130
Hamilton v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1915
Henry v Minett (1910) 13 GLR (NZ) 138
Holt v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2014) 86 NSWLR 96
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Di Masi; Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Belbin; Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Marciano (2014) 43 VR 348
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 510
McGlen-McLeod v Galloway [2012] NSWCA 368
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 206
Nichols v J J Newberry Co, 150 F.2d 15 (9th Cir. 1945)
Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 WLR 116
Photi v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDC 265
Pleau v Simpson-Sears (1977) 15 OR (2d) 436 (CA)
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Orcher [2013] NSWCA 478
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Sheales v The Age Co Ltd [2017] VSC 380
Skalkos v Assaf (2002) Aust Torts Reports…

Continue reading Vaa v Barakat

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vaa v Barakat [2017] NSWDC 300
Case
[2017] NSWDC 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Vaa, brought proceedings against Barakat for defamation, alleging that a poster had been published on Barakat’s shop premises featuring the plaintiff’s photograph and the word “thief”, and that a shop worker had also told the plaintiff that she was a thief. The defendant denied the allegations and raised the defences of justification, qualified privilege at common law, and honest opinion. The plaintiff sought damages, including aggravated damages. The court had to determine whether each of the matters complained of was published, whether the second matter complained of was published to a third party, and the applicability of the defences raised by the defendant. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the method of assessing damages where aggravated damages were sought and whether there was any mitigation of damages.

The court examined the evidence and found that the poster was not published on the shop premises as the plaintiff alleged, and the conversation with the shop worker did not amount to a publication to a third party. The court also found that the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and honest opinion were applicable. Therefore, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. The court noted that the plaintiff had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, which was relevant to the assessment of damages. The court reserved costs and allowed liberty to restore in relation to costs.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered for the defendant, costs be reserved, liberty be granted to restore in relation to costs, and exhibits be retained for 28 days. The plaintiff’s claims for defamation were dismissed, and the defendant was not required to pay damages. The case highlights the importance of evidence in defamation cases and the need for claimants to mitigate their damages where possible.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the defendant.

(2) Costs reserved.

(3) Liberty to restore in relation to costs.

(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.