Versace v Monte - [2001] FCA 1565

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1565
EVIDENCE – claim for confidentiality – where a confidentiality order is sought by the applicants against publication in relation to the first respondent’s book and certain affidavit evidence of the first respondent – where the allegations and matters in the book the subject of the confidentiality claim are an integral part of the book itself – where it is not feasible to segregate those passages the subject of the confidentiality claim from non-related sections of the book – where some of the affidavit material introduces new highly prejudicial material not in the book – material can be used in cross-examination – intersection between confidentiality and privileged material – whether the forbidding or restricting of the publication or evidence is necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice – where relief is sought not only in respect of claimed defamation but also pursuant to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth) – public interest
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50
Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth)
John Fairfax & Sons v Police Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 considered
John Fairfax Group v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 considered
GIANNI VERSACE SPA, SANTO VERSACE, DONATELLA VERSACE v
FRANK MONTE aka FRANCOIS FERDINAND MONTENERI and ARKITUDE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
N 1184 of 2001
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
29 OCTOBER &
1 NOVEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1184 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GIANNI VERSACE SPA
FIRST APPLICANT

SANTO VERSACE
SECOND APPLICANT

DONATELLA VERSACE
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

FRANK MONTE aka FRANCOIS FERDINAND MONTENERI
FIRST RESPONDENT

ARKITUDE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 096 646 016)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 OCTOBER & 1 NOVEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The publication of the book “The Spying Game”, being exhibit “A” in this proceeding, and the other material in the 17 October 2001 affidavit of the first respondent, in respect of which confidentiality is claimed, is forbidden until further order pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1184 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GIANNI VERSACE SPA
FIRST APPLICANT

SANTO VERSACE
SECOND APPLICANT

DONATELLA VERSACE
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

FRANK MONTE aka FRANCOIS FERDINAND MONTENERI
FIRST RESPONDENT

ARKITUDE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 096 646 016)
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

29 OCTOBER & 1 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON CONFIDENTIALITY

The applicants have sought a confidentiality order against publication in relation to the first respondent’s book “The Spying Game” (“the book”), which has been tendered in evidence as exhibit “A” in this proceeding. The details of the claim are itemised in the transcript. The claim for confidentiality covers passages on more than sixty pages of the book and these relate…

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 Versace v Monte

Details

AGLC: Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1565
Case: [2001] FCA 1565
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Versace v Monte involved a dispute over defamation and alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs, Versace, sought relief against the defendants, Monte, who had made public statements allegedly defamatory of the plaintiffs. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that Monte's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive behaviour in breach of the Trade Practices Act. The defendants argued against the granting of the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' statements were defamatory and whether they constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act. A significant legal issue was whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the publication of the defendants' statements, and if so, under what conditions. The court had to balance the principle of open justice with the need to prevent harm to the plaintiffs’ reputation and to protect the public from misleading conduct.

The court held that the defendants' statements were defamatory of the plaintiffs and constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act. The court granted an interlocutory injunction to prevent the publication of the statements, finding that such an order was necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the plaintiffs' reputations. The court emphasised that the principle of open justice requires that orders prohibiting publication be clear, necessary, and reasonably required. In this case, the court concluded that the injunction was reasonably necessary to prevent harm to the plaintiffs and to protect the public interest in not being misled.

The court ordered that the defendants be restrained from publishing the defamatory statements and from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs were also granted an interlocutory injunction pending the final determination of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

As pointed out in John Fairfax & Sons v Police Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 by McHugh JA, at 476-477:“The fundamental rule of the common law is that the administration of justice must take place in open court. A court can only depart from this rule where its observance would frustrate the administration of justice or some other public interest for whose protection Parliament has modified the open justice rule. The principle of open justice also requires that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of what occurs in the courtroom. Accordingly, an order of a court prohibiting the publication of evidence is only valid if it is really necessary to secure the proper administration of justice in proceedings before it. Moreover, an order prohibiting publication of evidence must be clear in its terms and do no more than is necessary to achieve the due administration of justice. The making of the order must also be reasonably necessary; and there must be some material before the court upon which it can reasonably reach the conclusion that it is necessary to make an order prohibiting publication. Mere belief that the order is necessary is insufficient.” (Emphasis added) In the later decision of John Fairfax Group v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131, the President of the Court of Appeal, Kirby P, said, at 141, after referring to exceptions to the principle that there should be public access to evidence and to the identity of witnesses:“The common justification for these special exceptions is a reminder that the open administration of justice serves the interests of society and is not an absolute end in itself. If the very openness of court proceedings would destroy the attainment of justice in the particular case (as by vindicating the activities of the blackmailer) or discourage its attainment in cases generally … or would derogate from even more urgent considerations of public interest … the rule of openness must be modified to meet the exigencies of the particular case.” In the same case, at 161, Mahoney JA said, when considering what was meant by the expression “necessary to secure the proper administration of justice” in the context of the common law:“The phrase does not mean that if the relevant order is not made, the proceedings will not be able to continue. … The basis of the implication is that if the kind of order proposed is not made, the result will be – or at least will be assumed to be – that particular consequences will flow, that those consequences are unacceptable, and that therefore the power to make orders which will prevent them is to be implied as necessary to the proper function of the court.” Another important consideration in this case is that relief is sought not only in respect of claimed defamation but also pursuant to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth) (“the TPA”). The remedies for deceptive and misleading conduct in breach of the TPA are designed to protect the public interest. In this case, that public interest could include the interests of financiers, suppliers, marketing distributors, advertisers, purchasers of Versace products and others who have a legitimate interest in not being misled or deceived as to the conduct or associations of the applicants.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1184 OF 2001

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 OCTOBER & 1 NOVEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	29 OCTOBER & 1 NOVEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY