- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Law Practice Management and Finance and Banking topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Insurance, Media & Information and Law Firm industries
Warning: This article contains details about sexual assault which may be upsetting for some readers. Reader discretion is advised.
The Archbishop of the Australian Greek Orthodox Church has successfully sued a journalist for defamation regarding four articles posted on the journalist's website.
The Court found that the articles conveyed numerous defamatory imputations. The journalist failed to establish any defence. He was ordered to pay damages of $250,000 plus aggravated damages of $50,000 and the Archbishop's legal costs. A permanent injunction was also granted against the journalist.
In issue
The main issues to be determined were:
- whether the defamatory imputations alleged by the Archbishop were carried;
- if so, whether the Archbishop has suffered 'serious harm' (under section 10A(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW));
- if both of the above were established (regarding some or all of the articles), whether the journalist had any defence of honest opinion, statutory qualified privilege or justification; and
- then (as the defences failed), which remedies should be awarded (compensatory damages, aggravated damages and/or other relief).
The background
Archbishop Makarios Griniezakis brought a defamation claim against a journalist (Alkis Morelas) regarding four articles published on the journalist's website 'Greek Flash News'. The website purported to report on 'Greek news from Greece and Australia' and was circulated online in Australia and internationally.
The four articles were published on the website in August and September 2021 and conveyed allegations of fraud, dishonesty, misappropriating funds, bribery and covering up of sexual offences within the Greek Orthodox Church.
The Archbishop alleged that the articles conveyed defamatory imputations and caused serious harm to his reputation.
The journalist relied on defences of honest opinion, statutory qualified privilege and justification.
The journalist was legally represented at various stages of the proceedings but represented himself at trial.
The decision at trial
The Court found that defamatory imputations were conveyed by the articles and the Archbishop suffered 'serious harm' to his reputation as a result.
The journalist failed to establish any of the defences he relied upon. Specifically:
- the defence of honest opinion (under section 31 of Defamation Act 2005) failed as the journalist did not establish that each article comprised an expression of opinion (rather than fact) and was based on 'proper material';
- the defence of statutory qualified privilege (under section 30 of the Defamation Act 2005) also failed. This was because, while the articles concerned issues of interest to readers and were published in the course of giving them information on those issues, the Court did not accept that the conduct of the journalist was reasonable in the circumstances; and
- the defence of justification (under section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005) was only relied upon in relation to one imputation but still failed as the journalist did not establish the substantial truth of the allegation the subject of the imputation.
Weighing all relevant factors, the Court was satisfied that an award of damages was required on account of the Archbishop's hurt feelings, damage to his reputation, need for vindication of his reputation and circumstances of aggravation.
The circumstances of aggravation primarily concerned the journalist's later publications (and the terms used therein) when the proceedings were on foot and despite the journalist having given an undertaking not to publish further material.
Ultimately, the Court assessed the appropriate award as being $250,000 plus $50,000 for aggravated damages.
As the journalist had shown no inclination to cease publishing such material about the Archbishop, the Court was satisfied that there was a real risk of republication of the imputations or other similar matters. The Court was therefore prepared to grant a permanent injunction against the journalist.
Implications for you
This decision is a reminder of the steps which need to be taken and criteria to be satisfied in order to successfully rely on the defences of honest opinion, statutory qualified privilege and justification under the Defamation Act 2005. It is also a reminder of the potential for aggravated damages to be awarded due to a publisher's persistent conduct.
Archbishop Makarios Griniezakis v Morelas (Trial Judgment) [2026] FCA 156
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
