Jeffrey and Curnow v Giles; Giles v Jeffrey and Curnow

[2015] VSCA 70

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Damages
3. › Assessment of general damages
4. › Vindication of reputation
5. › Whether award of damages so low as to be manifestly inadequate
6. › Whether appropriate and rational relationship between harm and damages
7. › Internet publication
8. › Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 34
1. Defamation
2. › Damages
3. › Causation
4. › Whether defamatory statements must be sole cause of harm
5. › Concurrent causes of harm
6. › Error in searching for sole cause
1. Defamation
2. › Damages
3. › Aggravated damages
4. › Whether conduct demonstrated lack of good faith
5. › Whether unjustifiable improper or lacking in bona fides
6. › Conduct relevant to compensatory damages though not aggravated damages
1. Defamation
2. › Damages
3. › Internet publication
4. › Choice of internet as medium of publication
5. › Relevance to quantum of compensatory damages
6. › Accessibility and retrievability of online defamatory material

Quick Take

In assessing defamation damages under s 34 of the Defamation Act 2005, a trial judge must not discount damages on the basis that the defamatory statements were not the sole cause of the plaintiff's harm; it is sufficient that the defamation was a cause of the harm. Conduct relied upon for aggravated damages that does not meet the threshold for such an award may nevertheless be taken into account in the assessment of compensatory damages. The choice of the internet as the medium of publication is a significant factor in assessing quantum, given the accessibility and retrievability of online material.