Johnson v Hone - [2025] NSWDC 319

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Johnson v Hone & Anor [2025] NSWDC 319
Hearing dates: 14 August 2025
Date of orders: 14 August 2025
Decision date: 19 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
See the orders at the end of this judgment

Catchwords:
SECURITY FOR COSTS – plaintiff brings proceedings for defamation claiming to reside at an address in Sydney, New South Wales – plaintiff’s solicitors concede in correspondence that he resides in the United States – whether security for costs should be ordered – quantum of security – no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) rr 4.5 and 42.21

Cases Cited:
Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 471
Corby v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 245
Etnyre v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 610
Ezzo v Grille [2003] NSWSC 776
Kazal v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1252
Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370; 178 LGERA 136
Kostov v Zhang; Kostov v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2017] NSWDC 89
Moran v Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] WASC 168
Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2023] FCA 753

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Plaintiff:
Mr Toyin Johnson
Defendants:
First Defendant: Mr Michael Hone
Second Defendant: Ms Kate Macken
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr W Finch (Solicitor for the plaintiff)
Defendants: Mr M Lewis
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: HFK Lawyers
Defendants: Baker McKenzie

File Number(s): 2025/00167775
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The application before the Court

The defendants, who are fellow employees of the plaintiff, bring an application for security for costs on the basis that, despite giving a residential address in Sydney, New South Wales, the plaintiff is in fact ordinarily resident in the United States (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) r 42.21(1)(a)) and has given a misstated or false address (UCPR r 42.21(1)(b)).
I heard the application on 14 August 2025 and made the orders set out at the end of this judgment. These are my reasons for making these orders.

The proceedings commenced by the plaintiff

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the District Court for defamation for publication of a series of slanders between 8 March 2024 and 3 April 2024. The text of the defamatory words spoken, and the context in which they were spoken, have not been set out in proper form in the statement of claim, and the claim cannot go further until this error is rectified. For the purposes of this application, these publications may be summarised as follows:

The first matter complained of, published to staff members including named persons in the office of the second defendant, was to the effect that “that black guy” (the plaintiff) was dangerous and violent and made other people feel unsafe because of his violent nature.

The second matter complained of, published in the course of a telephone call to other staff members, was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Johnson v Hone

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Hone [2025] NSWDC 319
Case: [2025] NSWDC 319
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v Hone involved a plaintiff who initiated defamation proceedings against a defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he resided at an address in Sydney, New South Wales. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff's solicitors conceded in correspondence that he actually resided in the United States. The primary issue before the court was whether security for costs should be ordered and, if so, the appropriate quantum of security. The court was also required to determine whether there was an issue of principle that needed to be resolved.

The court examined the circumstances of the case, particularly the discrepancy in the plaintiff's residence. It was noted that the plaintiff's solicitors had acknowledged the true residence of their client. The court considered the factors relevant to the order of security for costs, including the plaintiff's financial position and the likelihood of the defendant being prejudiced if security were not ordered. The court concluded that, while there was no issue of principle to be determined, the circumstances warranted the imposition of security for costs. It assessed the plaintiff's financial position and determined the appropriate amount of security to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The court ordered that the plaintiff provide security for costs in the amount of $25,000, to be paid to the defendant within 28 days of the judgment. The court emphasised that this order was not based on any issue of principle but rather on the specific circumstances of the case. The final orders of the court included the requirement for the plaintiff to provide the specified security for costs and the conditions under which the security would be discharged or forfeited.

Orders

Orders of the court

See the orders at the end of this judgment

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Johnson v Hone & Anor [2025] NSWDC 319
Hearing dates:	14 August 2025
Date of orders:	14 August 2025
Decision date:	19 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	See the orders at the end of this judgment
Catchwords:	SECURITY FOR COSTS – plaintiff brings proceedings for defamation claiming to reside at an address in Sydney, New South Wales – plaintiff’s solicitors concede in correspondence that he resides in the United States – whether security for costs should be ordered – quantum of security – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) rr 4.5 and 42.21
Cases Cited:	Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 471 Corby v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 245 Etnyre v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 610 Ezzo v Grille [2003] NSWSC 776 Kazal v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1252 Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370; 178 LGERA 136 Kostov v Zhang; Kostov v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2017] NSWDC 89 Moran v Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] WASC 168 Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2023] FCA 753
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Plaintiff: Mr Toyin Johnson Defendants: First Defendant: Mr Michael Hone Second Defendant: Ms Kate Macken
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr W Finch (Solicitor for the plaintiff) Defendants: Mr M Lewis Solicitors: Plaintiff: HFK Lawyers Defendants: Baker McKenzie
File Number(s):	2025/00167775
Publication restriction:	Nil