01.01.2014 Views

Gary Hevey Gordon & Jackson 9225 8075 9225 7333 ...

Gary Hevey Gordon & Jackson 9225 8075 9225 7333 ...

Gary Hevey Gordon & Jackson 9225 8075 9225 7333 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

15<br />

can only presume that as the defendant took no part in the proceedings any<br />

question of limitations periods was not raised. Judge Davis 46 was guided by the<br />

terms of the Act and considered the matter relating to Ms Popovic, (referred to<br />

earlier in this paper 47 ), as well as the case of Winn v Goodwin 48 (where Judge<br />

Shelton had awarded $30,000 in relation to defamatory statements repeated in<br />

correspondence to VCAT) and finally a decision of Judge Campbell in the<br />

matter of Gluyas v Tenana 49 (where $20,000 was awarded to a defendant who<br />

had defamed the plaintiff on the World Wide Web). Waving some judicial<br />

magic wand Judge Davis awarded Mr Trkulja the princely sum of $3,000 by<br />

way of compensatory damages. Mr Trkulja was also compensated $960.50 for<br />

his own costs (as a self represented party) together with interest of $104.40.<br />

46. Lest you should think that the County Court is the only court where damages<br />

might be somewhat less than expected I would also refer you to the case of<br />

Amanatidis v Darmos 50 . In that matter Ms Anastasia Darmos caused to be<br />

delivered to one person, and personally delivered to a priest, a letter containing<br />

defamatory material of the husband and wife plaintiffs concerning the<br />

disposition of the assets of a family member.<br />

Ms Darmos was the male<br />

plaintiff’s sister. The relevant deceased was their father. The case was hard<br />

fought with silk and junior for the plaintiffs and a Mr P. Darmos appeared for<br />

Ms Darmos. The judgment does not record whether counsel for the defendant<br />

was related to her although Wilson QC, for the plaintiff, alleged that there was<br />

further aggravation caused by the manner in which the defendant’s case was<br />

46 Trkulja v Trajkovska [2010] VCC 0010<br />

47 [2002] VSC 220<br />

48 [2008] VCC 1507<br />

49 [2008] VCC 1161<br />

50 [2011] VSC 163<br />

<strong>Gary</strong> <strong>Hevey</strong><br />

<strong>Gordon</strong> & <strong>Jackson</strong><br />

<strong>9225</strong> <strong>8075</strong> <strong>9225</strong> <strong>7333</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!