Duma v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 4) [2023] FCA 159

Duma v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 4) [2023] FCA 159

Order 2 was varied under the slip rule due to an accidental slip (failure to consider submissions on mitigation of damages pressed by the respondents). Damages were reduced from $545,000 to $465,000, taking into account a confidential settlement sum previously received in related defamation proceedings for publications of substantially similar meaning or effect, thereby avoiding double compensation as per ss 38(1)(d)-(e) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Parties
Applicant: William Marra Duma; First Respondent: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Angus Grigg; Third Respondent: Jemima Whyte
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Post Judgment (slip Rule Correction)
Outcome
Order for damages varied; damages reduced; costs awarded; appeal deadline fixed.
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Damages, Slip Rule, Double Compensation, Costs
Defamation Practice and Procedure Mitigation of Damages Slip Rule Double Compensation Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Marra Duma

Applicant

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Angus Grigg

Second Respondent

Jemima Whyte

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Post Judgment (slip Rule Correction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can a prior judgment/order be varied under the slip rule (r 39.05(h) of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)) where the Court failed to address submissions pressed by the respondents?
  2. 2 Should damages in a defamation proceeding be reduced by account of a confidential settlement sum received in related proceedings involving publications of similar meaning or effect?
  3. 3 Does evidence admissible under ss 38(1)(d) and (e) of Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) permit a reduction of damages to avoid double compensation?

Ratio Decidendi

Order 2 was varied under the slip rule due to an accidental slip (failure to consider submissions on mitigation of damages pressed by the respondents). Damages were reduced from $545,000 to $465,000, taking into account a confidential settlement sum previously received in related defamation proceedings for publications of substantially similar meaning or effect, thereby avoiding double compensation as per ss 38(1)(d)-(e) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Order for damages varied; damages reduced; costs awarded; appeal deadline fixed.

Orders

  • Order 2 of orders made on 7 February 2023 varied by substituting $465,000 for $545,000.
  • Any notice of appeal to be filed by 17 March 2023 (r 36.03(b) Federal Court Rules 2011).