In what is a record damages award for defamation, the Court of Appeal left untouched damages totalling $900,000 awarded in favour of well-known insolvency practitioner Michael Stiassny and his firm, Korda Mentha. Businessman, Vincent Ross Siemer, was ordered to pay damages after a prolonged and vociferous campaign attacking Mr Stiassny’s integrity.
The court was told legal issues followed a shareholder dispute within a company called Paragon Oil Systems. Mr Siemer was managing director and a shareholder. This shareholder dispute was eventually resolved in the High Court in Mr Siemer’s favour.
While this dispute was being litigated, Mr Stiassny and his firm Korda Mentha were appointed as caretaker managers to control Paragon Oil and maintain the status quo. Mr Siemer took exception to how the caretaker job was carried out and to the level of fees charged.
Korda Mentha negotiated an agreed settlement with Mr Siemer and Paragon in which Korda Mentha wrote off $20,200 in fees claimed while Mr Siemer and his company agreed they would make no further comment about their differences of opinion on the conduct of the caretaker job.
Matters did not rest there. Evidence was given that Mr Siemer then proceeded to lay complaints with the
In the High Court, content on the advertised website was held to be deliberately defamatory. Content accused Mr Stiassny of lying, giving perjured evidence in court, carrying out dishonest and deceptive accounting practices, having amassed a huge fortune through acting dishonestly, guilty of criminal conduct, and likened Mr Stiassny both to executives in the Enron scandal and to Saddam Hussein.
Trespass notices were served on Mr Siemer after concerns for the safety of Mr Stiassny’s home and family.
Court-ordered arrest warrants were issued to stop Mr Siemer continuing with his campaign of public vilification and Mr Siemer was briefly imprisoned for contempt of court.
The High Court ruled that Mr Siemer’s behaviour was a deliberate and calculated defamation intended to bring Mr Stiassny and his firm into disrepute. Mr Stiassny was awarded damages for defamation totalling $825,000, Korda Mentha damages of $75,000 for defamation and further damages of $20,000 for the breach of their agreement to make no further comment about their past business relationship.
The court prohibited Mr Siemer from appealing his liability to pay damages, given his flagrant disregard of court orders to stop publication. But he was permitted to challenge the amount of damages awarded. In what was an unusual turn of events, Korda Mentha took it upon itself to file papers in the Court of Appeal challenging the amount of damages payable so that the case could be disposed of. Mr Siemer complained that he no longer had the necessary paper work needed to file an appeal.
The Court of Appeal declined to reduce the damages awarded by the High Court ruling that the damages were not excessive. No worse case of defamation could be found in those countries having a legal system similar to
Siemer v. Stiassny – Court of Appeal (30.03.11)
04.11.001