Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1206

Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1206

The omission to claim interest was an oversight, the defendants did not alter their position in reliance on that omission, and leave to amend should be granted. Although the proceedings had been delayed, the defendants had acquiesced in some inactivity and no demonstrated prejudice justified reducing the interest period; applying the reasoning in Gogic, interest should run for the whole period. Because defamation damages compensated damage to reputation and injury to feelings spread over the period to judgment, interest on the whole verdict should be awarded at 2 percent rather than 4 percent. No ruling was made that costs should include two counsel, leaving that matter to a costs assessor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Post Verdict Applications for Interest on Damages and Costs of Two Counsel
Outcome
The plaintiff was granted leave to amend to claim interest; interest was ordered at 2 percent on the whole verdict amounts from 14 August 1983; no ruling was made that costs include two counsel.
Legal Topics
['damages for Defamation' 'interest on Damages' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'delay' 'costs of Two Counsel']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['damages for Defamation' 'interest on Damages' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'delay' 'costs of Two Counsel']

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 / Post Verdict Applications for Interest on Damages and Costs of Two Counsel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the statement of claim to add a claim for interest.' "Whether interest should be awarded on the jury's damages verdict in a defamation action." 'Whether delay in bringing the proceedings to finality should reduce the period over which interest is awarded.' 'What rate of interest should apply to the damages award.' "Whether the plaintiff's costs should include the costs of two counsel."]

Ratio Decidendi

The omission to claim interest was an oversight, the defendants did not alter their position in reliance on that omission, and leave to amend should be granted. Although the proceedings had been delayed, the defendants had acquiesced in some inactivity and no demonstrated prejudice justified reducing the interest period; applying the reasoning in Gogic, interest should run for the whole period. Because defamation damages compensated damage to reputation and injury to feelings spread over the period to judgment, interest on the whole verdict should be awarded at 2 percent rather than 4 percent. No ruling was made that costs should include two counsel, leaving that matter to a costs assessor.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend to claim interest; interest was ordered at 2 percent on the whole verdict amounts from 14 August 1983; no ruling was made that costs include two counsel.

Orders

  • ['Order that the defendants pay interest at 2 percent on the whole of the verdict amounts, from 14 August 1983.' 'The parties should prepare short minutes of order reflecting this and all previous determinations so as to finalise the proceedings in this Division.']