Defamation is a general term which involves legal claim when the injury is caused to the reputation of the person by a false statement of the fact. It includes both libel and slander where the former means defamation in the written for the fixed form and the later means spoken defamation. The case of Vanda Russell Gould V. Deputy Commissioner is one of the most early waited case of defamation. It is a kind of showdown which involves many range of allegations from buying multi million dollar house to possible money laundering, insider trading and rorting of legal system.
- What is defamation ?
- What is the judgement of the case Vanda Russell Gould v. Deputy Commissioner ?
- How does the case Vanda Russell Gould v. Deputy Commissioner relates to defamation ?
The case of Vanda Russell Gould v. Deputy Commissioner is relating to the defamation. The case began when the Australia' s tax commissioner, Chris Jordan have made allegations in order to defend himself against the suit which is brought by one of the opponent, Sydney accountant Vanda Gould. There are five essentials of defamation which includes a false statement of fact which is in published manner. The statement causes injury to the person to whom it is made.
The battle between the accountant and the commissioner have been raging for years across the court cases where each of which have provided different opinion of the large scale tax evasion operation. Jordan claims that Gould operated for his client and himself over the decades. A judge have previously found that Gould is behind the globe spanning web of the companies which allegedly dodged Australia's tax and also in the last year, Gould was convicted for attempting to pervert course of justice during legal stoushes with commissioner. Then NSW district court sentenced Gould for the imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months with minimum period of 1 year and 8 months of parole.
Under the circumstances, Gould appealed against the conviction and said that he did no wrong and is also willing to press on with the civil claim. In order clear its name, Gould sued Jordan for the defamation over the remark which was made by Jordan at National Press Club in July 2017 which painted him to be engaged in worst type of tax fraud, money laundering and insider trading.
Jordan denied its remark but did not take the name of Gould and also argued that if he did, they are substantially true and took defence of statutory and common law.
- Whether the statement given by Gould in the National Press Club amounted to defamation ?
You may like
The federal court in their decision held that, Chris Jordan will be allowed to access the information that makes an implied area in which second commissioners carries the protected information which is about the tax affairs of Sydney's accountant Vanda Russel Gould. Court has noticed that Gould was defamed in the speech being raised about money laundering, insider trading. Federal court has noticed tin the Hua Wang Case, where the promoters has raised $350 million of transaction as a profit being raised. Court on keeping the eye on this raised that this is very disgraceful behaviour being done as they all had maintained the matter in money laundering, insider trading and so on and the companies were widely being connected to it. J. White said in his decision that all the Taxation commissioners have to maintain all the public statements that are to be made for enforcing all kinds of tax laws. The function of the commissioners also lies that they should promote the confidence in the public for various compliance and nature of taxation laws. As by the laws and the matter this has been clear that all the tax commissioners have certain duties and liabilities in the working and that they will disguise the working in the nature of the capital being raised this implies that all the companies should make their bank and statement clear with the variant. As the tax commissioners implement all the variable responsibilities through which the public should rely on. All the documents and the case are amounted to be clear. Thus, the federal court held that all the nature of the tax commissioners should have to be reliable and this is the most dis graceful case ever came and the matter which involve the money laundering, trading all complies with the fraud in Australian share it provided the Mr Gould relation in all the defamation proceedings with its implications.