Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 4) [2010] NSWDC 234

Bechara v Bonacorso (No. 4) [2010] NSWDC 234

The defendant established that substantial portions of the alleged slanders were either not published or were published only as statements of suspicion (not guilt), and that the imputations conveyed were non-defamatory or protected by qualified privilege at common law and under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The defendant’s motive was proper and lacked malice; the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to suffer harm. Accordingly, the defences succeeded and judgment was given for the defendant.

Parties
Plaintiff: Antoine Bechara; Defendant: Paul Bonacorso
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant on all matters complained of.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Unlikelihood of Harm Defence, Damages in Defamation
Tort Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Unlikelihood of Harm Defence Damages in Defamation

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 5 Authorities cited 46 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antoine Bechara

Plaintiff

Paul Bonacorso

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant published the alleged defamatory statements
  2. 2 Whether the statements conveyed the imputations pleaded and, if so, whether they were defamatory
  3. 3 Whether the publications were protected by common law or statutory qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established that substantial portions of the alleged slanders were either not published or were published only as statements of suspicion (not guilt), and that the imputations conveyed were non-defamatory or protected by qualified privilege at common law and under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The defendant’s motive was proper and lacked malice; the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to suffer harm. Accordingly, the defences succeeded and judgment was given for the defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant on all matters complained of.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendant for each of the first, second and third matters complained of.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs.