Nguyen v Nguyen & Vu Publishers Pty Ltd and Van Thang Nguyen and Thien Huu Nguyen [2006] NSWSC 550

Nguyen v Nguyen & Vu Publishers Pty Ltd and Van Thang Nguyen and Thien Huu Nguyen [2006] NSWSC 550

The Defendants proved the substantial truth of the imputations that the Plaintiff falsely claimed to hold a Bachelor Degree, was a deceiver in that respect, and plagiarised substantial portions of his books, but did not prove that he was a fraudster, that he misused or financially exploited support for Ly Tong, that he engaged in corruption or bigamy, or that he misled readers about his newspaper's circulation. The contextual truth defence failed because the true contextual imputation of plagiarism did not prevent the Ly Tong imputations from causing additional reputational injury. Any otherwise available comment or qualified privilege defences failed because the Defendants were actuated...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment After Trial on Defences and Damages Following S7 a Jury Findings on Defamatory Imputations
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against all Defendants in the sum of $72,000 inclusive of interest; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'express Malice' 'aggravated Damages' 'plagiarism' 'damages Assessment']
['defamation Law'] ['substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'express Malice' 'aggravated Damages' 'plagiarism' 'damages Assessment']

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 / Judgment After Trial on Defences and Damages Following S7 a Jury Findings on Defamatory Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the articles published in Tivi Tuan San conveyed defamatory imputations for which the Defendants remained liable after the s7A jury findings.' 'Whether the Defendants proved substantial truth of the imputations that the Plaintiff was a fraudster, falsely claimed a Bachelor Degree, was a deceiver, plagiarised other books, and misused support for Ly Tong for personal advantage.' 'Whether the Defendants established contextual truth under s16 of the Defamation Act 1974.' 'Whether the pleaded defences of comment, qualified privilege, and unlikelihood of harm were available.' 'Whether the Defendants were actuated by express malice.' 'What compensatory, aggravated, interest, and costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants proved the substantial truth of the imputations that the Plaintiff falsely claimed to hold a Bachelor Degree, was a deceiver in that respect, and plagiarised substantial portions of his books, but did not prove that he was a fraudster, that he misused or financially exploited support for Ly Tong, that he engaged in corruption or bigamy, or that he misled readers about his newspaper's circulation. The contextual truth defence failed because the true contextual imputation of plagiarism did not prevent the Ly Tong imputations from causing additional reputational injury. Any otherwise available comment or qualified privilege defences failed because the Defendants were actuated...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against all Defendants in the sum of $72,000 inclusive of interest; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['I direct a verdict and the entry of judgment against all Defendants in the sum of $72,000 inclusive of interest to the date of this judgment.' 'I reserve costs.' 'Exhibits may be returned.']