Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

“second richest and biggest business man in Belconnen”, not believed by Justice Gray

By johnboy - 28 June 2010 16

The Supreme Court has released the judgment of Justice Gray in a strange defamation case between the operators of a Belconnen karate school and one Jeff Manny, the self decribed “second richest and biggest business man in Belconnen”.

It’s a cracking yarn (once you get down around par 64) of alleged adulteries and dire (unsubstantiated) accusations about the handling of children.

I’ll leave readers to peruse the judgment themselves rather than risk the ire of the courts in further re-capitulation.

Justice Gray pronounces of Mr Manny: “the first defendant falls into the category of witness where one can say “I do not believe anything they say”.

Par 107 is also a doozy:

107. I have formed a very adverse view of the first defendant’s credibility and reliability as a witness. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the text of the letter to indicate that it was written in furtherance of the affairs of the company. The only possible connection might be in the concluding paragraphs of the letter relating to the first defendant’s intent “to live peacefully in act [sic] as I have done last 20 years and grown to be second richest and biggest business man in Belconnen …”.

All up Mr Manny’s accusations have cost him $26,200, before costs (which one suspects will be substantial).

It is also intriguing that, due to police liking a gossip as much as anyone, making written allegations about a police officer to the police is apparently actionable defamation.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to
“second richest and biggest business man in Belconnen”, not believed by Justice Gray
PBO 8:58 am 01 Jul 10

I read in the CT this morning that one of the defendants has since died. This is a real shame as he did not get a chance to clear his name. I wonder how big Jeff Manny feels now seeing as he said that they were once like family?

Anna Key 11:29 am 29 Jun 10

So who is the richest and biggest businessman in Belconnen?

Hells_Bells74 8:30 pm 28 Jun 10

Link seems fine now. Who knows!

PBO 7:57 pm 28 Jun 10

More like Jeff Manic! Umm lol, is that defamation?

Hells_Bells74 6:50 pm 28 Jun 10

neanderthalsis said :

I don’t know about being the “second richest and biggest business man in Belconnen” but his business interests are certinaly diversified:
Jeff MANNY MITSUBISHI (Tuggeranong ACT, Aircon, not cars)
Jeff Manny Air Conditioning Refrigeration & Heating
Jeff Manny Constructions
Jeff Manny Group (real estate agent)
Jeff Manny Pty Limited in Appliances, Lighting & Electrical

And now it seem he is the owner of Climatrol.

And he has some glowing recommendations on Not Good Enough.

Couldn’t get the link to work, nor any links on google they have. Strange! I have gone there before no worries.

Between critical error no accessing database messages and mixed internet zone with no desire to get to the page ever. Everything else is fine, anyone else having the same drama?

Skidbladnir 5:16 pm 28 Jun 10

outdoormagoo said :

Did anyone else notice that the start of the ruling states that the plaintiffs names are to be withheld, but it mentions them in para 47.
Did someone make a boo-boo?

1) The first plantiff died.
As noted by the judge in Section 170, there is no such thing as defamation against the dead.
2) Paragraph 5 and 6 seem to imply that after Justice Gray said his part neither the second plaintiff nor Jeff Manny really cared any more if their names were attached to the case (despite the case continuing to be called P & W vs Manny & Anor’ in court documentation):

Para 1. The plaintiffs in this matter, who have been given the pseudonyms P and W respectively…
Para 5. …”It seemed to be both in the plaintiffs’ interest and that of the defendants to minimise the extent of the publication. On that basis, the order was made.
Para 6. The course of these reasons requires that I refer extensively to the evidence and pleadings that might identify the plaintiffs. In [40] I refer to the names of the first and second plaintiffs but thereafter in these reasons describe them as such. After delivery of these reasons, I shall hear from the plaintiffs and the defendants as to whether there is any reason why the plaintiffs’ names should now be published or whether a further order should be made forbidding publication of any matter in these reasons which might identify them.

johnboy 5:05 pm 28 Jun 10

Skidbladnir said :

The judgement is TWENTY TWO THOUSAND WORDS LONG, Jb.
However I agree, there are some choice passages across the entire judgement.
But, who in their right mind accuses a senior police officer and a lawyer of various criminal activities on their corporate letterhead without providing proof?

But I suspect your addition is wrong, I get $26,200 + costs…
Section 192 is $22,200, Section 193 is $4,000, Section 194 is costs.

Indeed, dunno what came over me.

neanderthalsis 3:38 pm 28 Jun 10

I don’t know about being the “second richest and biggest business man in Belconnen” but his business interests are certinaly diversified:
Jeff MANNY MITSUBISHI (Tuggeranong ACT, Aircon, not cars)
Jeff Manny Air Conditioning Refrigeration & Heating
Jeff Manny Constructions
Jeff Manny Group (real estate agent)
Jeff Manny Pty Limited in Appliances, Lighting & Electrical

And now it seem he is the owner of Climatrol.

And he has some glowing recommendations on Not Good Enough.

PBO 3:11 pm 28 Jun 10

Sounds like P and W have a great defamation case.

Woody Mann-Caruso 2:58 pm 28 Jun 10

the first plaintiff, is a retired lawyer and the father of the second plaintiff…a senior constable in the Australian Police Force

FAIL

outdoormagoo 2:15 pm 28 Jun 10

Did anyone else notice that the start of the ruling states that the plaintiffs names are to be withheld, but it mentions them in para 47.

Did someone make a boo-boo?

54-11 2:12 pm 28 Jun 10

The first part of the hearing was 7/11/07, and judgement handed down 11/6/10. Wow, the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slow, all right.

Skidbladnir 1:48 pm 28 Jun 10

The judgement is TWENTY TWO THOUSAND WORDS LONG, Jb.
However I agree, there are some choice passages across the entire judgement.
But, who in their right mind accuses a senior police officer and a lawyer of various criminal activities on their corporate letterhead without providing proof?

But I suspect your addition is wrong, I get $26,200 + costs…
Section 192 is $22,200, Section 193 is $4,000, Section 194 is costs.

Monster of the Deep 1:12 pm 28 Jun 10

This court case was a hoot. Most entertaining piece of fiction I’ve come across.

caf 12:54 pm 28 Jun 10

I consider that the first defendant’s evidence to the contrary is self-serving and prevaricatory and I do not accept it.

“prevaricatory” is a very lawerly way of saying “a pack of lies” 😉

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site