Vakras v Cripps

In the case of Vakras v Cripps, the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for defamation and breach of contract. The defamation arose from three articles published by the defendants on their respective websites, which referenced the hiring of part of a gallery operated by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs presented five causes of action, pleading multiple imputations, while the defendants pleaded Hore-Lacy imputations as defences and qualified privilege in relation to some of the articles. The judge made strong credibility findings, which the defendants sought to challenge. The defendants' appeals raised several issues, including whether the judge's findings on the imputations were correct, whether certain meanings found by the judge were outside the plaintiffs' pleaded cases, and whether the awards of damages were excessive. Additionally, the defendants argued that the duty of good faith should not be implied into the hiring contract, which the plaintiffs had also claimed.

The court examined the credibility findings made by the trial judge and determined that they were not open to challenge, as they were based on substantial evidence. The court found that the judge did not err in determining which imputations were proved and which were impermissible. The court also found that the meanings attributed to certain imputations by the judge were not outside the scope of the pleaded cases. Regarding the defence of qualified privilege, the court found that two of the three articles did not attract this defence. The court concluded that the award of ordinary compensatory damages was not manifestly excessive, but there was an error in the assessment of aggravated compensatory damages, as the judge took into account an impermissible consideration. Consequently, the appeal by one defendant was allowed and the causes of action were remitted for retrial, while the appeal by the other defendant was dismissed with respect to one plaintiff and allowed with respect to the second plaintiff.

In relation to the contract, the court found no error in the trial judge's decision that the duty of good faith should not be implied into the hiring contract. The appeal was dismissed on this issue. The final orders of the court included allowing the appeal by one defendant and remitting the causes of action for retrial, dismissing the appeal by the other defendant with respect to one plaintiff, and allowing the appeal with respect to the second plaintiff. Additionally, the court found no error in the trial judge's decision that the duty of good faith should not be implied into the hiring contract, and the appeal on this issue was dismissed.