Markisic v AEA Ethnics Publishers Pty Ltd & Ors

[2007] HCATrans 582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S47 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
DRAGAN MARKISIC
Applicant
and
A.E.A ETHNICS PUBLISHERS PTY LTD
First Respondent
IGOR PAVLOVSKI
Second Respondent
TONI PAVLOVSKI
Third Respondent
BLAJER ZLATKO
Fourth Respondent
LJUPCO STANKOVSKI
Fifth Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.25 AM

__________________

HEYDON J: The applicant, who is unrepresented, applies for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. His draft notice of appeal propounds 32 grounds spread over eight pages. Those grounds centre on complaints that the Court of Appeal failed to find error in the conduct of the trial judge hearing the applicant's proceedings for defamation (Simpson J).

Those proceedings are one set of several sets of proceedings brought in relation to three separate but similar publications in Macedonian newspapers alleging that the applicant had abducted his daughter in Albania and taken her to Australia against her mother's will. The applicant was unrepresented before Simpson J and the Court of Appeal. The applicant's complaints centre on the failure of Simpson J to permit his legally unqualified brother to represent him, on her bias, on the Court of Appeal's bias, on Simpson J's refusal of adjournments, setting aside of subpoenas served by the applicant, continuation of the hearing in his absence, and on her handling of various legal issues.

We do not doubt that difficulties arise in the conduct of such a trial without a legally qualified representative. We have therefore endeavoured to look beyond the defects in the applicant's written argument to see if there is any error which this Court could and should cure.

However, the papers filed by the applicant are prolix, discursive and in a technical sense embarrassing. There is no prospect of success in an appeal were special leave to be granted. The applicant requires the period within which his application should have been filed to be extended. Without examining why it was not filed in time, it is sufficient to say that even if time were extended the application would have to be dismissed.

We dismiss the application.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kirby and myself.

AT 9.27 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Markisic v AEA Ethnics Publishers Pty Ltd & Ors* concerned a dispute brought before the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Markisic, alleged that he had been defamed by publications distributed by the respondents, AEA Ethnics Publishers Pty Ltd and others. The core of the dispute revolved around the content of these publications and their alleged defamatory nature concerning Mr Markisic.

The High Court was required to determine whether the publications in question constituted defamation at common law. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the material published by the respondents conveyed defamatory imputations about the applicant. This involved an analysis of the ordinary meaning of the words used in the publications and whether that meaning would tend to lower the applicant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

In their reasoning, Kirby and Heydon JJ applied established principles of defamation law. They considered the meaning of the words in their context, as a reasonable reader would understand them. The court's analysis focused on whether the publications exposed the applicant to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or if they injured his reputation in his business or profession. The judges examined the specific allegations made in the publications and assessed whether these allegations were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.

The court ultimately found that the publications did not convey defamatory imputations about Mr Markisic. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established