Zaia v Eshow [2017] NSWSC 1540

Zaia v Eshow [2017] NSWSC 1540

The plaintiff succeeded on most of the publications because the defendant's Facebook posts conveyed multiple serious defamatory imputations that were not successfully defended as honest opinion; they amounted to assertions of fact and not merely opinions. Given the defendant's persistence and risk of repetition, vindication of reputation and injunctive relief were warranted. Damages were awarded primarily for vindication given the absence of proof of hurt feelings or evidence of actual damage.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mar Meelis Zaia; Defendant: Sargon Eshow
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning, Defences to Defamation, Damages, Injunctions, Defamatory Publications on Social Media
Defamation Defamatory Meaning Defences to Defamation Damages Injunctions Defamatory Publications on Social Media

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mar Meelis Zaia

Plaintiff

Sargon Eshow

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publications conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the statutory defence of honest opinion was available
  3. 3 Assessment of damages where the plaintiff did not give evidence of hurt feelings

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff succeeded on most of the publications because the defendant's Facebook posts conveyed multiple serious defamatory imputations that were not successfully defended as honest opinion; they amounted to assertions of fact and not merely opinions. Given the defendant's persistence and risk of repetition, vindication of reputation and injunctive relief were warranted. Damages were awarded primarily for vindication given the absence of proof of hurt feelings or evidence of actual damage.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $150,000.
  • The defendant is permanently restrained by himself, his servants or agents from further publishing the third and fifth to ninth matters complained of or any other matter giving rise to the imputations found to have been conveyed (or similar imputations not differing in substance from them).