Legal Research
Cases
Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd

Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd

Case [2000] NSWSC 1206 15 December 2000

Defamation

Damages

Costs

Amendment of Pleadings

Defamation Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1206

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law - Defamation

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 17027/83

HEARING DATE(S): 12 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 15 December 2000

PARTIES :

Enn Vilo - Plaintiff
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor - Defendants

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : Mr T Molomby - Plaintiff
Mr S Wheelhouse - Defendants

SOLICITORS: Leitch Hasson & Dent - Plaintiff
Mallesons Stephen Jacques - Defendants

CATCHWORDS: Damages for defamation - costs - failure to claim interest - application for leave to amend statement of claim - right to claim interest - whether omission was deliberate - Supreme Court Act 1970 s 94 - relevance of delay in relation to award of damages - damage to reputation and injury to feelings - deprivation of money - costs of two counsel.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED: John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly
Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642
Simonius Vischer & Company v Holt & thompson [1979] 2 NSWLR 322
Anderson's Pacific Trading Co Pty Ltd v Karlander New Guinea Line Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 870
Bennett v Jones [1977] 2 NSWLR 355
John Fairfax & Sons v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131
Australian Consolidated Press v Driscoll (1988) Aust Torts R 80 - 175
MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Palmer (1987) 8 NSWLR 297
Toomey v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, Ritchie, Supreme Court Procedure NSW
Goldsworth v Radio 2ue Sydney Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 772

DECISION: Order that the defendants pay interest at 2 percent on the whole of the verdict amounts, from 14 August 1983. The parties should prepare short minutes of order reflecting this and all previous determinations so as to finalise the proceedings in this Division.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Defamation
SIMPSON J
15 December 2000
17027/83

Enn VILO v JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS LTD AND ANOR

Judgment

HER HONOUR :

1 In the final round of this litigation the plaintiff, who successfully sued the defendants for damages for defamation, seeks an order for interest on the jury’s award of damages, and an order that the costs to which he is admittedly entitled include the costs of two counsel. Ancillary questions that arise, should an award of interest be made, concern the rate at, and the period over, which the order should extend.

History

2 On 14 December 1983 the plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendants for damages for defamation arising out of two publications, one in the Business Review Weekly, published 13 - 19 August 1983, and one in the Sun Herald, published 14 August 1983. Progress of the claim was, to put it kindly, leisurely, and for much of the period between 1983 and 1999 the matter could fairly be described as dormant. By notice of motion filed on 28 April 1995 the defendants sought to have the proceedings dismissed for want…

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 Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd

Details

AGLC: Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1206
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1206
Decision Date: 15 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vilo sued John Fairfax & Sons Ltd over defamatory statements published in a newspaper, alleging significant harm to their reputation and emotional distress. The dispute reached the court over whether Vilo was entitled to interest on the damages awarded for defamation and whether they had a right to amend their statement of claim to include this claim. The court considered the statutory provision allowing for interest on damages under the Supreme Court Act 1970, section 94, and the circumstances surrounding the omission of the interest claim in the original statement of claim. The court examined whether the omission was deliberate and the relevance of any delay in seeking to amend the statement of claim in relation to the award of damages.

The court held that Vilo's omission to claim interest in their original statement of claim was not deliberate and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. In assessing whether to grant leave to amend the statement of claim, the court weighed the delay in making the application and its impact on the proceedings, the potential prejudice to the defendant, and the importance of the interest claim in the context of the overall damages awarded. The court concluded that the delay was not excessive and that granting leave to amend would not significantly prejudice the defendant, particularly given the relatively minor nature of the interest claim compared to the overall damages awarded.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised that the primary objective was to achieve a just resolution of the dispute, taking into account the principles of fairness and the practicalities of the litigation process. The court found that Vilo's reputation and emotional distress were significantly impacted by the defamatory statements, justifying the award of damages, and that the interest claim, while important, was secondary to these primary damages. The court ultimately granted leave for Vilo to amend their statement of claim to include the interest claim, allowing for a comprehensive resolution of all aspects of the defamation claim.

Orders