Background
Archbishop Makarios Griniezakis v Morelas (Trial Judgment) [2026] FCA 156, decided by Abraham J on 27 February 2026, is a significant Federal Court decision on online defamation, aggravated damages, and the limits of the honest opinion and qualified privilege defences.
The applicant, Archbishop Makarios Griniezakis, is the Archbishop of Australia and Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia and Oceania, a position he has held since his enthronement on 29 June 2019. The respondent, Alkis Morelas, was the publisher of a Greek-language website called "Greek Flash News," which purported to report on Greek news from Greece and Australia. Mr Morelas had been writing for Greek-language newspapers in Australia for some 55 years.
The Archbishop sued in respect of four Greek-language articles published on the website between August and September 2021. The articles were directed at the Greek community in Australia and were also circulated to media organisations, senior church officials, and church leaders in Greece — including the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishops of the United States and Great Britain.
The Publications
The four articles contained extremely serious allegations against the Archbishop. The first article, published on 13 August 2021, alleged that the Archbishop had misappropriated donations made to the Greek Orthodox Fire Appeal for Australian bushfire victims, and had spent more than $10 million of donated church funds on holidays and personal expenses in two years. The third article, published on 31 August 2021, alleged the Archbishop had bribed the Ecumenical Patriarch to appoint four friends as bishops and had accepted a $1 million bribe himself.
Most seriously, the fourth article, published on 24 September 2021, alleged that the Archbishop had covered up allegations that a priest within the Archdiocese had sexually harassed or assaulted minors — and had misused Archdiocese funds to bribe Greek media into providing favourable coverage.
The Court found the language of the articles was "plain and clear," "designed to shock," and "gratuitously derogatory," employing capitalisation, scare quotes, and rhetorical devices to emphasise the defamatory message.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the articles conveyed the defamatory imputations alleged;
- Whether those publications caused serious harm to the Archbishop's reputation;
- Whether the respondent could establish the defences of honest opinion (s 31), statutory qualified privilege (s 30), or justification (s 25) under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW);
- The appropriate quantum of damages, including whether aggravated damages were warranted; and
- Whether a permanent injunction should be granted.
Decision
Serious Harm
Abraham J found the serious harm threshold was met in respect of all four articles. The website was specifically directed at the Australian Greek community and had a "reasonably large" readership, with thousands of monthly views. The articles were promoted on Facebook and forwarded to third parties, engaging the "grapevine effect" of social media spreading disparaging material "like a contagion" (citing Tribe v Simmons (No 2) [2021] FCA 1164). Critically, Mr Morelas had himself circulated the articles to senior church leaders worldwide. Multiple witnesses gave evidence of community members confronting the Archbishop about the allegations.
Honest Opinion
The defence of honest opinion under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 was rejected for all four articles. Abraham J found that the publications read as statements of purported fact, not opinion. In cross-examination, Mr Morelas himself "accepted he was publishing facts not opinions." Even if the articles could be recharacterised as opinion, the respondent had not established the "proper material" on which the opinion was said to be based was substantially true.
The Court noted a revealing pattern in Mr Morelas's evidence: when asked why he had not fact-checked particular assertions, his answers were "because I know the answer" and "I knew what the answer was going to be" — reflecting a preconceived view and a mind "not open to change."
Qualified Privilege
The statutory qualified privilege defence under s 30 was also rejected for all four articles. The central deficiency was the respondent's failure to act reasonably in publishing the material. Abraham J found that Mr Morelas had sent a complaint about the Archbishop to the Patriarch in Constantinople before the Archbishop had even arrived in Australia, based on information from an anonymous source "who works for the big government."
The only step Mr Morelas took to seek comment was a single telephone call to the Archbishop four days before the first article, in which he did not disclose the subject matter, describing the questions only as "sensitive matters." There was no follow-up. The Court found that Mr Morelas "did not care what the Archdiocese had to say in relation to his publications." He knew the Archdiocese had a media unit but made no contact with it.
Justification
The defence of justification (s 25) was pleaded only in relation to the fourth article's allegation that the Archbishop had covered up sexual harassment of minors. The Court rejected this defence, finding the evidence established that the Archbishop had in fact taken action in response to each complaint received in 2020 and 2021. The respondent had not discharged the burden of proving the imputation was substantially true.
Damages
Abraham J awarded total damages of $300,000, comprising $250,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages.
The general damages reflected the seriousness of the imputations — allegations of financial misappropriation, bribery, and covering up child sexual abuse against a religious leader whose reputation within a specific community is central to his vocation — and the breadth of dissemination both in Australia and internationally. The Archbishop gave evidence of deep personal hurt, humiliation, and distress.
Three factors warranted the aggravated damages award:
- Response to the concerns notice — instead of apologising, Mr Morelas used the concerns notice as an opportunity to make further allegations. The Court described his response as "arrogant and contemptuous."
- Continued publication after proceedings commenced — Mr Morelas published further defamatory articles and social media posts after proceedings were on foot and after giving an undertaking to the Court not to do so.
- Conduct at trial — Mr Morelas attempted to use cross-examination to ventilate new allegations irrelevant to the proceedings, and deliberately insulted the Archbishop by refusing to address him by his correct title.
Permanent Injunction
The Court granted a permanent injunction requiring Mr Morelas to immediately remove all four articles (and any republications or matter to the same effect) from any internet site within his control, and permanently restraining him from republishing the articles or the defamatory imputations found by the Court. The Court applied the principles from Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 9) [2019] FCA 1383, having regard to the risk of republication, the nature of the imputations, and the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
Notably, the Court declined to make a broader injunction sought by the applicant that would have permanently restrained Mr Morelas from publishing "any matter of and concerning the applicant." Abraham J found that such an order was too broad, noting there was only one prior case where an injunction of such breadth had been granted, on more extreme facts.
Practical Implications
This decision is significant for practitioners and potential litigants in several respects:
- Community-language online publications carry real risk. The fact that the articles were published in Greek on a niche community website did not diminish their capacity to cause serious harm. The Court found the targeted nature of the audience — people with a direct connection to the Archbishop and the Greek Orthodox Church — amplified the damage. Practitioners should advise clients that online defamation in community-language media is fully actionable under Australian law.
- The grapevine effect is a powerful factor in serious harm. Abraham J's application of the "grapevine" principle — that social media causes defamatory material to spread "like a contagion" — reinforces that online publications available indefinitely on the internet are treated very differently from transient oral communications. Even modest website traffic can satisfy the serious harm threshold when the content is capable of being forwarded, shared, and discussed.
- A single, inadequate phone call will not save a qualified privilege defence. The decision underscores that publishers who fail to take genuine steps to verify their allegations before publication cannot rely on statutory qualified privilege. A perfunctory call without disclosing the subject matter falls well short of what s 30 requires.
- Post-litigation conduct elevates damages significantly. The $50,000 aggravated damages component — driven by the defiant response to the concerns notice, breaches of undertakings, and inappropriate trial conduct — is a reminder that a respondent's behaviour after the cause of action arises can substantially increase the final award. Clients on both sides of defamation disputes need to understand that how you conduct yourself in litigation matters as much as what you originally published.
- Permanent injunctions remain available for persistent publishers. Where there is a demonstrated risk of republication — particularly where a respondent has breached undertakings — the Court will grant injunctive relief. However, this decision confirms that the scope of the injunction must be tailored to the specific imputations found to be defamatory; blanket orders restraining all future publication about a person remain exceptional.
How Matrix Legal Can Help
Makarios v Morelas illustrates the substantial damages available when online publishers act recklessly and without regard for the truth. Whether you are facing a sustained campaign of defamatory publications online, or you need to understand the risks of a proposed publication, Mark Stanarevic and the Matrix Legal team provide expert advice across the full spectrum of defamation litigation — from urgent concerns notices and evidence preservation through to Federal Court trial and permanent injunctive relief.
Contact us for a free initial assessment of your matter. Early intervention is critical in online defamation cases, where every day of continued publication compounds the harm.
This article is general information and not legal advice. Defamation risk turns on the precise words used, the publication context, the audience, and available evidence.