Weston v Favretto

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read
CITATION: Weston v Favretto & Ors [1999] NSWSC 358
CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law
FILE NUMBER(S): 20337 of 1998
HEARING DATE(S): 9 April 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:
21 April 1999

PARTIES :


MALCOLM JOHN WESTON
(Plaintiff)

v

FRANK FAVRETTO
(First Defendant)

COMS21 LIMITED 057 864 876
(Second Defendant)

JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED
(Third Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
COUNSEL :

P Gray
(Plaintiff)

R Lancaster
(First & Second Defendant)

T Blackburn
(Third Defendant)
SOLICITORS:

Verekers
(Plaintiff)

Watson Mangioni
(First & Second Defendants)

John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited
(Third Defendant)
CATCHWORDS: Imputations - capacity - form
DECISION: See paragraph 15

DLJ : 1

        THE SUPREME COURT
        OF NEW SOUTH WALES
        COMMON LAW DIVISION
        DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20337 of 1998

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 21 APRIL 1999

        MALCOLM JOHN WESTON
        (Plaintiff)

        v

        FRANK FAVRETTO
        (First Defendant)

        COMS21 LIMITED 057 864 876
        (Second Defendant)

        John Fairfax publicationS PTY Limited
        ACN 003 357 720
        (Third Defendant)
        JUDGMENT (Imputations - capacity - form)
    1 By an Amended Statement of Claim the plaintiff sues the first and second defendants in respect of a publication on 26 August 1998 in the following terms:
    “Schedule A
    The Board of directors of Coms21 Limited has decided to stand down its General Manager, Mr Mal Weston, pending receipt of an explanation from him as to where he’s been, what company business he has been on and what authority he has had to do it.
    The decision was taken because Mr Weston has been absent from his duties for much of the time since Mr Graeme Green of Felscot Pty Limited announced his intention to launch a takeover for Coms21”.
    2 The plaintiff contends that this matter complained of in its natural and ordinary meaning conveys the following defamatory imputation of him:
    “6(a) the plaintiff deceitfully absented himself from his duties as General Manager of the company in order to give clandestine assistance, on the Company’s time, to persons who were seeking to take over control of the Company contrary to the best interests of the Company;
    (b) the plaintiff was derelict in his duties as General Manager of the Company in that he had, without the knowledge or authority of the Company, absented himself from his duties at a time when the Company was the subject of a takeover bid”.
    3 The plaintiff sues the third defendant as the publisher of “ The Australian Financial Review ” in respect of a matter published on 27 August 1998 as follows:
    “ Schedule B
    The boardroom tussle at smartcard and gaming group Coms21 Limited escalated yesterday when the largest shareholder called for the removal of all directors except founder and chief executive Mr Graeme Green.
    Felscot Pty Limited, a company owned by Mr Green and his brother James, is believed to have requested a shareholders meeting to consider the removal of executive chairman Mr Frank Favretto, acting chief executive Mr Rodger Mortleman, Mr Keith Cullen and Mr Mike Hale.
    The Australian Financial understands that Felscot has nominated Mr Jim Green, Coms21 general manager…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Weston v Favretto and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] NSWSC 358
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Weston v Favretto was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Weston, sought relief against Favretto, alleging defamation in relation to a blog post published by Favretto on his website. The blog post contained various statements that Weston claimed were defamatory and had the potential to damage his professional reputation. The court was tasked with determining whether Favretto's blog post was defamatory and, if so, whether any defences Favretto raised were applicable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the blog post made imputations that lowered Weston's capacity in the estimation of right-thinking members of the community, and if so, whether these imputations were of a defamatory nature. Additionally, the court had to consider the defences Favretto raised, including whether the statements were of a fair comment on a matter of public interest and whether Favretto had taken reasonable steps to verify the information before publishing it.

The court examined the content of the blog post and the context in which it was published. It found that the post did indeed contain imputations that could be considered defamatory, as it suggested that Weston lacked the capacity to perform his professional duties effectively. The court further determined that the statements went beyond fair comment, as they were not based on verifiable facts and were more akin to personal attacks rather than constructive criticism. Favretto's defence of verification was also dismissed, as the court found that he had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information before publishing it.

The court concluded that Favretto was liable for defamation and ordered him to pay damages to Weston. The court also made an order for an injunction, prohibiting Favretto from publishing any further defamatory statements about Weston. This decision underscores the importance of verifying information before publishing it, particularly when it pertains to matters of professional reputation.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.