Hanna v Maks

Case [2003] NSWSC 158


CITATION: HANNA v MAKS [2003] NSWSC 158
HEARING DATE(S): 14 February 2003
25 February 2003
6 March 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
19 March 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
DECISION: 1. I remove the action from the Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 21 March 2003.; 2. I dismiss the action against the defendants as an abuse of process of the Court.; 3. I order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants of the action and of the Notice of Motion.; 4. I order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the third to fifty-fourth defendants or any expenses incurred by them in respect of the initiation of the proceedings by the Statement of Claim filed on 8 January 2003. I reserve liberty to each such defendant to apply to the Defamation List Registrar in this regard.; 5. I order that the exhibits be retained for 28 days. In the event that no proceedings to appeal these orders has been instituted they may be returned to the parties by the Registry.
CATCHWORDS: Abuse of process
LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 19974 s50(4)
CASES CITED: Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd (1977) 1 WLR 478
Packer v Meagher (1984) 3 NSWLR 486
Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509

PARTIES :

FIKRY MAKS
(First Defendant)

MONA ADLY MAKS
(Second Defendant)

NABIL NESSIM MALAK
(Third Defendant)

MARK MERCURIUS
(Fourth Defendant)

SAFWAT EL-BANNA
(Fifth Defendant)

KAMEL HANNA
(Sixth Defendant)

Drs NOFRET & FOUAD DAOOD
(Seventh Defendants)

Dr HALA GIRGES
(Eighth Defendant)

KAMAL MOUSSA
(Ninth Defendant)

MAGED GENDAY
(Tenth Defendant)

SAMY FARAH
(Eleventh Defendant)

MAGY ABDEL KODOUS
(Twelfth Defendant)

LYDIA ISAAC
(Thirteenth Defendant)

HEBA STAPHANOS
(Fourteenth Defendant)

PHILIP SOLEIMAN
(Fifteenth Defendant)

BILL
(Sixteenth Defendant)

RAOOF MERHEM
(Seventeenth Defendant)

BOUSHRA GADDALLAH
(Eighteenth Defendant)

MOURAD ABDELMALEK
(Nineteenth Defendant)

PETER KIROLOS
(Twentieth Defendant)

GEORGE MITTAS
(Twenty-first Defendant)

Dr MEDHAT YACOUB
(Twenty-second Defendant)

CHARLES BEIRAKDAR
(Twenty-third Defendant)

GEORGE FANOUS
(Twenty-fourth Defendant)

NAGY & NAJWA SOLEIMAN
(Twenty-fifth Defendants)

HANY HABIB
(Twenty-sixth Defendant)

EFFAT FARAG
(Twenty-seventh Defendant)

ADEL SLEIMAN
(Twenty-eighth Defendant)

MAKRAM KHALIL
(Twenty-ninth Defendant)

GAMAL NASHED
(Thirtieth Defendant)

OAKLEIGH TRAVEL CENTRE
(Thirty-first Defendant)

Dr HANI TAWFIK
(Thirty-secondDefendant)

Dr ADEL ZAIED
(Thirty-third Defendant)

GHALI GHALI
(Thirty-fourth Defendant)

MORRIS TADROS
(Thirty-fifth Defendant)

ENJI PRINTING
(Thirty-sixth Defendant)

ZAHER BICHAY
(Thirty-seventh Defendant)

GOLDEN FOOD STAR
(Thirty-eighth Defendant)

MAGDY BOUTROS
(Thirty-ninth Defendant)

SAMIR BASILIOUS
(Fortieth Defendant)

MICHAEL SABONGI
(Forty-first Defendant)

RAFIC & HANI MICHAEL
(Forty-second Defendants)

JOHN DCAN
(Forty-third Defendant)

NAJWA HANNA
(Forty-fourth Defendant)

ASHRAF BECHAY
(Forty-fifth Defendant)

FARAH MANSOUR
(Forty-sixth Defendant)

TERESA NICOLA
(Forty-seventh Defendant)

S ESKANDER
(Forty-eighth Defendant)

GOLDEN FOOD STAR
(Forty-ninth Defendant)

YOUSRY GHALY
(Fiftieth Defendant)

MOFID BEBAWY
(Fifty-first Defendant)

REFAT BECHAY
(Fifty-second Defendant)

RAFIK GHOBRIAL
(Fifty-third Defendant)

WANIS WANIS
(Fifty-fourth Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20002 OF 2003
COUNSEL:

Plaintiff - in person

R McHugh
(Defendant)
SOLICITORS: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
(Defendant)

- 17 -

      IN THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COMMON LAW DIVISION
      DEFAMATION LIST

      JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

      WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH 2003

      20002 OF 2003

      FAYEZ PHILIPPE HANNA
      (Plaintiff)

      v

      Fikry Maks
      (First…

Continue reading Hanna v Maks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hanna v Maks [2003] NSWSC 158
Case
[2003] NSWSC 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hanna v Maks, the court heard an action brought by Ms Hanna against Mr Maks alleging abuse of process. The parties were involved in a complex business dispute, and Ms Hanna claimed that Mr Maks had initiated legal proceedings against her without any reasonable prospect of success, solely for the purpose of causing her harassment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with Justice Perram presiding.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the initiation of the prior legal proceedings by Mr Maks constituted an abuse of process. This required an examination of whether the proceedings were commenced or continued with an improper motive, and whether they were vexatious, oppressive, or an abuse of the court's process. Ms Hanna argued that the proceedings were brought with a malicious intent to cause her distress, while Mr Maks contended that the proceedings were bona fide and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The court found that the prior legal proceedings were indeed an abuse of process. Justice Perram considered the evidence and concluded that Mr Maks' initiation of the proceedings was not for a proper purpose but rather was intended to cause Ms Hanna harassment. The court held that the proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, and an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, Ms Hanna was awarded costs and damages for the abuse of process, with the court emphasising the importance of protecting parties from such abuses in the legal system.

The court ordered Mr Maks to pay Ms Hanna's costs of the proceedings and a sum of money by way of damages for the abuse of process. The court also made an order for the stay of the prior proceedings, emphasising that the abuse of process found was serious enough to warrant such action. The judgment underscored the court's role in safeguarding against the misuse of legal processes for improper purposes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.