Antoun v Russo

[2018] NSWSC 1658

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Antoun v Russo [2018] NSWSC 1658

Hearing dates:

31 October 2018

Decision date:

31 October 2018

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Adamson J

Decision:

(1) An order pursuant to ss 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non‑publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) prohibiting the publication of any statements made by Mr Antoun in Court before me on 31 October 2018 in which he has made allegations of criminal or improper conduct against any of the defendants.

 

(2) Order that order (1) continue until further order.

 (3) Grant liberty to apply for variation of either (1) or (2) above.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – plaintiff alleged criminal conduct by defendants in the course of interlocutory application to strike out pleading or dismiss proceedings – defendants applied for non-publication orders – defamation proceedings brought in relation to statements similar to statements made in court –order necessary to prevent prejudice to proper administration of justice

Legislation Cited:

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 6, 8, 12

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Nemer Antoun (Plaintiff)
Angelo Russo (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff in person
B Dean (First, Second and Third Defendants)
M Wirth (Fourth Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Hanna Legal (First, Second and Third Defendants)
Henry William Lawyers (Fourth Defendant)

File Number(s):

2018/218281

Judgment – EX TEMPORE

1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the defendants' notices of motion for dismissal of the proceedings or, in the alternative, strike out of the pleadings, Mr Dean, who appears on behalf of the first, second and third defendants, has made an application under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act).

2. The basis for the application is that, in the course of his submissions, Mr Antoun, the plaintiff, made several very serious allegations against particularly the first and second defendants, in which he alleged that they were involved in criminal conduct. Mr Dean has informed me that there are presently pending in this Court proceedings for defamation which have been brought by Mr Russo as first plaintiff and by Wentworth Williams & Associates as second plaintiff against Mr Antoun in respect of statements similar to those he made in Court today.

3. Mr Dean has submitted that the purpose of the defamation proceedings is to vindicate the reputation of the plaintiffs. He contended that, were I not to make a non-publication order under the Act today, the effect would be that the media could report what has transpired in Court today under the privilege which applies to fair reporting of court proceedings, and that this, in turn, would frustrate the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the defamation proceedings and in effect give the media the right to repeat all of the allegations made by Mr Antoun against the defendants. On this basis, Mr Dean contended that an order under the Act was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

4. Mr Antoun, in response to the application, said that he needed to have a voice and that I should not suppress his voice.

5. I am required, in deciding whether to make a non-publication order, to take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest of open justice: s 6 of the Act. It is necessary for me to specify the ground or grounds on which I make any non-publication order: s 8(2) of the Act.

6. I am persuaded by Mr Dean's submissions that it is necessary to make the order sought. It is not a question of suppressing Mr Antoun's voice but, rather, ensuring that the matters to be litigated in the defamation proceedings are litigated in those proceedings, and that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in those proceedings - namely, vindication of their reputation - is not rendered nugatory by reporting of what has occurred in the hearing of the notices of motion before me this morning.

7. I am satisfied on the basis of Mr Dean's submissions that an order under the Act is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice having regard to the parallel defamation proceedings. I consider that the public interest in a person having a right to vindicate his or her reputation through the avenue of defamation proceedings significantly outweighs, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the public interest in open justice.

8. Legal practitioners are bound by professional conduct rules to ensure that they have a proper basis for any serious allegation they make against anyone. Because Mr Antoun appears for himself, he is not bound by those professional conduct rules, and may not appreciate the impropriety of making statements for which there is insufficient basis.

9. In saying that, I make no judgment as to whether or not there is, or is not, a sufficient basis for what Mr Antoun has said before me today. However, I am persuaded that it is necessary for me to make a non-publication order in respect of statements made by Mr Antoun against any of the defendants which contain any allegation of improper or criminal conduct to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

10. I am required, pursuant to s 12 of the Act, to ensure that any order made under the Act operates for no longer than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is made. I am not presently in a position to determine the period for which the non-publication order ought remain in force. In these circumstances, I have decided to make the non-publication order continue “until further order”.

11. For these reasons, I make the following orders:

1. An order pursuant to ss 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non‑publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) prohibiting the publication of any statements made by Mr Antoun in Court before me on 31 October 2018 in which he has made allegations of criminal or improper conduct against any of the defendants.

2. Order that order (1) continue until further order.

3. Grant liberty to apply for variation of either (1) or (2) above.

**********

Decision last updated: 31 October 2018