Williams v Katis - [2014] VSC 405

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MILDURA

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2013 01423

TIMOTHY CHARLES WILLIAMS	Plaintiff
v
JOHN NICHOLAS KATIS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATES OF HEARING:	22, 23, 24, 31 July and 1 August 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Williams v Katis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 405

---

DEFAMATION – Action for defamation by one candidate against opponent in municipal election – Four separate publications – News broadcast – News interview – Court document – Provision of court document to journalist – Statement to lawyer – Meaning of defamatory imputations – Defences to defamation – Justification – Fair comment – Honest opinion – Malice – Defamation Act (Vic) 2005, ss 25, 30, 31.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Castelan	Hilton-Wood Solicitors
For the Defendant	Mr A Donald	Dwyer, Mahon & Robertson Lawyers & Consultants

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Between September and October 2012, Mr Timothy Williams and Mr John Katis (the parties to these proceedings) were candidates in the October 2012 municipal elections for the Robinvale Ward of the Swan Hill Rural City Council (the Council). Mr Katis, the incumbent Mayor (and defendant in this case), faced a serious challenge from Mr Williams (the plaintiff), a local businessman in the waste management industry.

As is the case in many municipal elections, the competition between the two Council nominees was fierce. Disappointingly, their contest became bitter and personal, culminating in Mr Katis seeking an intervention order against Mr Williams, and this defamation action subsequently being brought by Mr Williams against Mr Katis.

Mr Williams decided to contest the Robinvale Ward in July 2012. For some time he had been concerned about many aspects of Mr Katis’ election campaign and use of Council resources. In particular, he had been troubled by Mr Katis’ use of Council-produced business cards as, in Mr Williams’ view, an election tool.

On 12 October 2012, Mr Williams went to the Robinvale hairdressing salon (the salon) of Ms Maeghan Bussell, Mr Katis’ granddaughter. Mr Katis subsequently alleged, both in an application and summons for an intervention order (Intervention Order application)[1] and on a local television broadcast that Mr Williams intimidated his granddaughter by taking photographs of the interior of the salon and those inside it. Mr Williams, on the other hand, says that his purpose was innocent: he was attempting to photograph a collection of Mr Katis’ business cards displayed on a counter in the salon, which he contends breached the Swan Hill Rural City Council Councillor Code of Conduct 2009 (the Code of Conduct).[2]
[1]Application and Summons for an Intervention Order made by Mr Katis against Mr Williams dated 16 October 2012 (Exhibit P4).
[2]Exhibit P2.

Mr Katis reported Mr Williams’ behaviour at the salon to an officer at the Robinvale police station. Notwithstanding Mr Williams being warned by both his wife and the…

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 Williams v Katis

Details

AGLC: Williams v Katis [2014] VSC 405
Case: [2014] VSC 405
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v Katis, the plaintiff, Williams, pursued a defamation claim against Katis, his opponent in a municipal election, over four separate publications. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining the defamatory nature of the imputations and the available defences under the Defamation Act (Vic) 2005.

The court examined whether the publications, including a news broadcast, a news interview, a court document, and the provision of a court document to a journalist, contained defamatory imputations regarding Williams. The court had to interpret the meaning of these imputations and assess their impact on Williams' reputation. The defences considered included justification, fair comment, honest opinion, and malice, which Katis relied upon to refute the defamation claims.

After a comprehensive analysis, the court concluded that some of the publications did carry defamatory imputations, which adversely affected Williams' reputation. However, the court found that Katis' statements were justified and constituted fair comment, as they were based on Katis' honest opinion and were made without malice. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Katis, dismissing Williams' defamation claim.

The court ordered Williams to pay Katis' costs of the proceedings, which included costs associated with the defence of the defamation claim.

Orders