Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1920

Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1920

Damages should not be mitigated based on the reviewer's subjective assessments, nor on findings in the proceedings themselves, as these are not proved facts known to the public or amounting to evidence of bad reputation. The continued online publication was 'unjustified' and increased the harm caused. Each plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and aggravated damages for ongoing and serious personal and reputational harm, but exemplary damages are not awarded as the necessary threshold of conscious wrongdoing is not satisfied.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Aleksandra Gacic; Second Plaintiff: Ljiljana Gacic; Third Plaintiff: Branislav Ciric; First Defendant: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Matthew Evans
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation (civil Claim) / Assessment of Damages After Court of Appeal Finding for Plaintiffs, Post Remittal Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs; compensatory and aggravated damages awarded to each.
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Damages, Aggravated Damages, Exemplary Damages, Reputation Harm, Internet Publication, Assessment of Non Economic Loss
Tort Defamation Mitigation of Damages Aggravated Damages Exemplary Damages Reputation Harm Internet Publication Assessment of Non Economic Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aleksandra Gacic

First Plaintiff

Ljiljana Gacic

Second Plaintiff

Branislav Ciric

Third Plaintiff

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Matthew Evans

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (civil Claim) / Assessment of Damages After Court of Appeal Finding for Plaintiffs, Post Remittal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages should be mitigated based on findings or opinions about the quality of food or service at Coco Roco;
  2. 2 Whether continued online publication of the defamatory article exacerbated harm to plaintiffs;
  3. 3 Assessment of compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages for defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

Damages should not be mitigated based on the reviewer's subjective assessments, nor on findings in the proceedings themselves, as these are not proved facts known to the public or amounting to evidence of bad reputation. The continued online publication was 'unjustified' and increased the harm caused. Each plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and aggravated damages for ongoing and serious personal and reputational harm, but exemplary damages are not awarded as the necessary threshold of conscious wrongdoing is not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs; compensatory and aggravated damages awarded to each.

Orders

  • Judgment be entered in favour of the first plaintiff on the basis of an award of damages in the amount of $160,000.
  • Judgment be entered in favour of the second plaintiff on the basis of an award of damages in the amount of $160,000.