RESTIFA v PALLOTTA [2009] NSWSC 958

RESTIFA v PALLOTTA [2009] NSWSC 958

The publications, although not naming the plaintiffs, were understood by readers to identify them as candidates; the imputations conveyed were that they had bribed an official to secure candidacy and were corrupt, which are plainly defamatory. The defence of qualified privilege failed because recipients did not have the requisite interest in receiving the information, and the defendant's conduct was not reasonable. Damages awarded must be appropriately related to harm and are capped by statute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for both plaintiffs with damages and costs
Legal Topics
['identification of Plaintiffs' 'defamatory Publication' 'qualified Privilege (common Law and Statutory)' 'damages in Defamation']
['defamation'] ['identification of Plaintiffs' 'defamatory Publication' 'qualified Privilege (common Law and Statutory)' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matters complained of published in the Italian internet newspaper identified the plaintiffs' 'Whether the publications were defamatory' 'Whether the defence of qualified privilege at common law and statutory qualified privilege under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 was made out' 'Assessment of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

The publications, although not naming the plaintiffs, were understood by readers to identify them as candidates; the imputations conveyed were that they had bribed an official to secure candidacy and were corrupt, which are plainly defamatory. The defence of qualified privilege failed because recipients did not have the requisite interest in receiving the information, and the defendant's conduct was not reasonable. Damages awarded must be appropriately related to harm and are capped by statute.

Court Disposition

Judgment for both plaintiffs with damages and costs

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the first plaintiff in the sum of $40,000.' 'Verdict and judgment for the second plaintiff in the sum of $40,000.' "Defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings."]