Saturday, June 29, 2013

Sylvester and Browne Lawyers successfully defend Defamation claim against nightclub

Sylvester and Browne Lawyers are pleased to advise that they have successfully defended a defamation claim against our client 'Palms on Oxford' nightclub located in Darlinghurst, Sydney.

In 2012, the complainant launched a defamation claim against the club, its Director and the Licensee. He claimed that he was told by security guards at the club that he was too drunk to enter and should go away and sober up somewhere else. These words were denied by the club, the licensee and the security guard involved. The complainant, who is a Sydney journalist, outlined in his statement of claim that the words alleged to have been spoken had defamed him and affected his reputation.

However, after a five day hearing in the NSW District Court before Judge Judith Gibson, the case was dismissed and the complainant was ordered to pay the costs of all three Defendants. For a copy of the judgment click on the link below.    

The Director of Tulloch Pty Ltd Mr Peter Inwood, the company that owns Palms on Oxford said in relation to case, "We engaged Sylvester & Browne Lawyers in 2012 after we received the initial anti-discrimination complaint. They also handled the subsequent defamation claim against the club. We could not be any happier with their representation of us in both of these matters. We are understandably ecstatic with the decision of the court. Unlike many other lawyers representing pubs and clubs in Sydney,  David and his team achieved what they said they would achieve.  I would highly recommend David and his team for the brilliant job they did in defending the defamation claim against us."

Commenting on the case generally, Principal Lawyer David Sylvester said, "This defamation judgment is a very important decision for those who own, operate or manage licensed venues in Australia. As the law currently stands, venues that engage in appropriate and responsible vetting procedures in relation to patrons and potential patrons should not be concerned when refusing entry to patrons pursuant to their responsibilities under both the Liquor and Anti-Discrimination Acts".

The following links relate to media coverage of the case.

No comments:

Post a Comment