Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 738

Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 738

The judgment was not backdated because the Court of Appeal had not varied an earlier award of damages and the plaintiffs first had an established right to damages on 19 December 2013. Pre-judgment interest was awarded from 30 September 2003 to 19 December 2013 at 3% per annum because the defamatory publication caused continuing hurt and injury and that rate was appropriate having regard to previous defamation cases. Indemnity costs were ordered because, after liability had been finally determined in the plaintiffs' favour and the remitted proceedings concerned only damages, the defendants unreasonably failed to make a genuine settlement offer within s 48A(2)(a).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Consequential Orders on Pre Judgment Interest and Costs After Remittal by the Court of Appeal for Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Judgment for each plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $207,842.19, with costs of and incidental to the remitted proceedings on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['pre Judgment Interest' 'post Judgment Interest' 'backdating Judgment' 'indemnity Costs' 'settlement Offers' 'assessment of Damages']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['pre Judgment Interest' 'post Judgment Interest' 'backdating Judgment' 'indemnity Costs' 'settlement Offers' 'assessment of Damages']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Consequential Orders on Pre Judgment Interest and Costs After Remittal by the Court of Appeal for Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the judgment should be backdated to the date of Harrison J's judgment under Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 36.4(3)." 'What period and rate should apply for pre-judgment interest on defamation damages.' 'Whether the defendants unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer so that costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis under s 48A(2)(a) of the Defamation Act 1974.']

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment was not backdated because the Court of Appeal had not varied an earlier award of damages and the plaintiffs first had an established right to damages on 19 December 2013. Pre-judgment interest was awarded from 30 September 2003 to 19 December 2013 at 3% per annum because the defamatory publication caused continuing hurt and injury and that rate was appropriate having regard to previous defamation cases. Indemnity costs were ordered because, after liability had been finally determined in the plaintiffs' favour and the remitted proceedings concerned only damages, the defendants unreasonably failed to make a genuine settlement offer within s 48A(2)(a).

Court Disposition

Judgment for each plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $207,842.19, with costs of and incidental to the remitted proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff, Aleksandra Gacic, against the defendants in the amount of $160,000.' 'Order pre-judgment interest on the amount of $160,000 for Aleksandra Gacic at a rate of 3% per annum calculated from 30 September 2003 to 19 December 2013 in the amount of $47,842.19.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff,...