Markisic v Today-Denes & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1276

Markisic v Today-Denes & Ors [2005] NSWSC 1276

The ninth defendant established that the imputations that the plaintiff physically abused his wife and committed kidnapping by removing his daughter from Macedonia to Australia were substantially true and related to matters of public interest, and established contextual justification for the passport imputation. The remaining defendants were entitled to verdicts because the same or identical publications had been successfully defended, the unjustified imputations did not further injure the plaintiff's reputation, and the plaintiff had abandoned the proceedings and called no evidence from which damages could be quantified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim in Defamation / Trial of Defences and Damages Following Jury Determinations Under S7 a of the Defamation Act 1974
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and fifteenth defendants dismissed; verdict in favour of each of those defendants; judgment accordingly.
Legal Topics
['justification' 'substantial Truth' 'public Interest' 'contextual Justification' 'mitigation of Damages' 'abandonment of Proceedings' 'internet Publication of Related Judgments' 'common Publication']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['justification' 'substantial Truth' 'public Interest' 'contextual Justification' 'mitigation of Damages' 'abandonment of Proceedings' 'internet Publication of Related Judgments' 'common Publication']

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

Claim in Defamation / Trial of Defences and Damages Following Jury Determinations Under S7 a of the Defamation Act 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ninth defendant established justification under s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 for imputations that the plaintiff physically abused his wife and committed the criminal offence of kidnapping by removing his daughter from Macedonia to Australia.' 'Whether the imputations relied on for justification related to matters of public interest.' 'Whether contextual justification under s16 of the Defamation Act 1974 defeated the imputation that the plaintiff dishonestly obtained a passport for his daughter without the knowledge or consent of her mother.' 'Whether the second, fourth, fifth and fifteenth defendants were entitled to verdicts in their favour despite not pleading the same substantive defences as the ninth defendant.' "Whether the plaintiff's absence from the hearing and failure to call evidence justified dismissal or left only nominal damages."]

Ratio Decidendi

The ninth defendant established that the imputations that the plaintiff physically abused his wife and committed kidnapping by removing his daughter from Macedonia to Australia were substantially true and related to matters of public interest, and established contextual justification for the passport imputation. The remaining defendants were entitled to verdicts because the same or identical publications had been successfully defended, the unjustified imputations did not further injure the plaintiff's reputation, and the plaintiff had abandoned the proceedings and called no evidence from which damages could be quantified.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and fifteenth defendants dismissed; verdict in favour of each of those defendants; judgment accordingly.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's claim against the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and fifteenth defendants is dismissed." 'Verdict in favour of each of those defendants.' 'Judgment accordingly.']