Gianni Versace SpA, Santo Versace and Donatella Versace v

Frank Monte aka Francois  Ferdinand Monteneri and Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited

[2002] FCA 190 (8 March 2002)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gianni Versace SpA, Santo Versace and Donatella Versace

v

Frank Monte aka Francois Ferdinand Monteneri

and

Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited

N1184 OF 2001

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

It is the practice of this Court in matters which are of significant public interest to make a brief explanatory statement when delivering judgment.

The statement I now make is a short overview of some of the main issues and the findings I have made but it does not purport to comprehensively set out my reasons and findings which are contained in the judgment.  The judgment concerns only the question of liability.  The question of damages has been separated out and will be considered at a further hearing.

Precise details as to the form of appropriate Orders to be made will need to be the subject of further submissions.

THE BACKGROUND

The House of Versace is a famous Milanese fashion house.  The principal Versace company and two members of the Versace family, Donatella Versace and Santo Versace have brought proceedings against both Frank Monte and his company, Arkitude Holdings Pty Limited, essentially claiming they are guilty of false and misleading conduct concerning them and also against Frank Monte for the publication of serious defamatory imputations against them.  The Versace claim was that Frank Monte made false statements in claiming a commercial relationship with the late Gianni Versace, who Frank Monte claimed had retained his services as a private investigator and adviser. 

One central issue in the case was whether there was ever any conversation, meeting or relationship between Gianni Versace and Frank Monte in the period from January 1996 up to the murder of Gianni Versace on 15 July 1997.

Frank Monte asserted that Gianni Versace confided in him during that eighteen month period with respect to the activities and affairs of the House of Versace and the alleged activities of his brother and sister, Santo and Donatella.  The statements alleged by Frank Monte to have been made by Gianni Versace are sensational and grave in nature.  They concerned each of the three Versace applicants and were said by Frank Monte to have been based on actual conversations with Gianni Versace.  Often, the statements were cast in the form of direct quotations.

The publication of these matters was in the form of a book published by Frank Monte and Arkitude entitled The Spying Game, which was ghost written for Frank Monte to recount his life story.  Additionally, some of the imputations and representations have been extensively published in an article in The Weekend Australian colour magazinesupplement, of 23-24 June 2001 and on the website maintained by Frank Monte and Arkitude, where a collection of asserted rumours, gossip, sensational newspaper articles and statements were gathered and made available to the world at large.  The website was heavily promotional of the Frank Monte image as a colourful private investigator.

Frank Monte and Arkitude have denied the allegations made.  However, no attempt was made by Frank Monte to rely on a defence of truth to any of the alleged defamatory imputations in these proceedings.  In so far as the misleading and deceptive conduct claim is concerned, Frank Monte essentially relied on denials and claimed he was an “information provider” and therefore had protection as such under the legislation in respect of the claims of misleading conduct.  This defence is largely directed to media outlets but is not confined to such outlets.

In the defamation proceedings, Frank Monte raised a number of defences at common law and under statute.  He claimed an honest belief in the truth of the statements concerning Santo and Donatella Versace derived from the alleged conversations with Gianni Versace and denied that the alleged representations had been made or that the statements would convey defamatory imputations against Santo and Donatella Versace or the company. Part of his case was also that the statements did not specifically identify Santo and Donatella Versace because they referred to the Versace business or the House of Versace, which he contended included many other people.

The representations or statements and imputations against the Versace business and Santo and Donatella Versace, on the evidence before me, are false and misleading and constitute misleading and deceptive conduct. They are sufficiently specific when considered in context, to identify the Versace company and the family.

I have found that each of Frank Monte’s statements complained of lacks any credibility whatsoever.  In particular, I am persuaded that he never had any relationship, contact or communication of any type with Gianni Versace and that his assertions to the contrary are completely untrue.  He is not within the protection of the “information provider” defence in the legislation relating to misleading and deceptive conduct.  Nor does he have any defence with respect to the claim in defamation.  I have found that he did not have any honest belief that the imputations were true.  His evidence is largely to the contrary and does not disclose any reasonable basis for the assertions.  The objective truth of the imputations was not asserted by Frank Monte and no attempt was made to establish objective truth of any of the statements apart from the claims of conversations and meetings with Gianni Versace over the eighteen month period.  Those latter assertions were untrue.

I am satisfied that damage has been suffered by each of the applicants as a consequence of communication of the material and as a consequence of the deceitful and defamatory course of conduct adopted by the respondents and that unless they are restrained from further publishing such false information, the damaging statements will continue to be propagated.  Although the book dealt with other matters, the statements relating to Versace were central to the book and constituted one of the main threads of the book.  They were also central to the article published in The Weekend Australian and to publications which were made available on the website at relevant times.

Injunctive relief should be granted to restrain further publication of the matters complained of.  The precise form of this relief will need to be settled.  The Versaces are entitled to appropriate declarations based on the findings I have made.  The matter will now be stood over to resolve the precise forms of relief at this stage and to consider the question of costs to date.  Arrangements will be made to schedule a hearing on the questions as to the nature and extent of damages claimed and to any defences in relation to the issue of damages.

I now publish my reasons.  I adjourn the Court.

JUSTICE BRIAN J TAMBERLIN

8 March 2002