Balzola v Passas [2020] NSWSC 896

Balzola v Passas [2020] NSWSC 896

Three statements were proved: Mrs Passas made statements accusing Mr Balzola of beating his wife and having an AVO as well as a comment about 'pulling swifties'; Mr Raciti made a statement accusing Mr Balzola of being a criminal who had charges and an AVO. The statements conveyed defamatory imputations as pleaded. Qualified privilege applied to Mr Raciti’s retort, shielding him from liability. Damages for non-economic loss were awarded against Mrs Passas in the amount of $11,213, reflecting modest harm to reputation limited by the circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Balzola; First Defendant: Julie Passas; Second Defendant: Anthony Raciti
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant; judgment for second defendant against plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Oral Defamatory Statement, Common Law Qualified Privilege, Reply to Attack, Damages, Aggravated Damages, Compensatory Damages, Damage to Reputation, Injury to Feelings, Grapevine Effect
Tort Law Defamation Oral Defamatory Statement Common Law Qualified Privilege Reply to Attack Damages Aggravated Damages Compensatory Damages +3 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Balzola

Plaintiff

Julie Passas

First Defendant

Anthony Raciti

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defamatory statements were made by Mrs Passas and Mr Raciti about Mr Balzola
  2. 2 Whether pleaded imputations were conveyed by the statements
  3. 3 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to Mr Raciti's statements

Ratio Decidendi

Three statements were proved: Mrs Passas made statements accusing Mr Balzola of beating his wife and having an AVO as well as a comment about 'pulling swifties'; Mr Raciti made a statement accusing Mr Balzola of being a criminal who had charges and an AVO. The statements conveyed defamatory imputations as pleaded. Qualified privilege applied to Mr Raciti’s retort, shielding him from liability. Damages for non-economic loss were awarded against Mrs Passas in the amount of $11,213, reflecting modest harm to reputation limited by the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant; judgment for second defendant against plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $11,213;
  • Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff;