Zollo v Commissioner for Consumer Affairs

The applicant, Mr Zollo, appealed a decision of the District Court of South Australia granting summary judgment against him in defamation proceedings he had initiated against the respondent, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. These defamation proceedings arose from a press release issued by the respondent concerning disciplinary proceedings brought against Mr Zollo and Built It Pty Ltd under the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 (SA).

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent was entitled to summary judgment in the defamation proceedings, and by extension, whether the applicant's defamation claim was an abuse of process or otherwise unsustainable. This required the court to consider the nature of the respondent's press release and its relationship to the findings made in the disciplinary proceedings.

The court reasoned that the disciplinary proceedings had established significant adverse findings against Mr Zollo, including breaches of an undertaking given to the District Court and deliberate subversion of the building licensing regime. The Primary Judge in the disciplinary proceedings had found that Mr Zollo was not a fit and proper person to be a director of a building work contractor due to his conduct. The court considered that the press release accurately reflected these findings and was therefore likely protected by qualified privilege, or that the defamation claim was otherwise without merit given the established facts. The court noted that Mr Zollo had not provided legal representation and had pursued the defamation proceedings despite the adverse findings against him.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent.