Jomaa v Denney

[2018] NSWSC 76

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jomaa v Denney [2018] NSWSC 76
Hearing dates:	2 February 2018
Decision date:	02 February 2018
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	McCallum J
Decision:	Orders made for substituted service
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim for defamation in respect of television broadcast by television station in administration at time of publication – in-house lawyers declining to accept service of pleading against journalist – application for substituted service on journalist
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Ali Jomaa (plaintiff) Andrew Denney (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: M Richardson (plaintiff) No appearance for the defendant   Solicitors: Dakdouk & Associates (plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2017/353546
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Ali Jomaa by statement of claim filed on 22 November 2017. The primary defamatory publication sued on is a segment broadcast on "Ten Eyewitness News" on 10 August 2017. However, as the proprietor of Channel 10 was then in administration, the proceedings have been commenced only against the journalist, Mr Andrew Denney, who it appears is still employed by Channel 10.

2. The plaintiff faces the difficulty that, as the television station was in administration at the time of publication, the lawyers who (I expect) would ordinarily accept service of a pleading against a Channel 10 journalist have refused to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks an order for substituted service.

3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Ibrahim Dakouk who has set out the considerable lengths to which the plaintiff has gone in attempting to serve the pleading on the journalist or to persuade the senior legal counsel at Channel 10 to accept service on his behalf. Those attempts have been unsuccessful.

4. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for the plaintiff to serve the defendant in the manner required by law and that an order for substituted service under rule 10.14 is appropriate.

5. For those reasons, I make orders 1, 2 and 3 in the notice of motion filed 4 January 2018 and stand the proceedings over before me on 16 March 2018 for first listing. I direct the plaintiff to inform the defendant of the adjourned date at the time the pleading is served.

Decision last updated: 13 February 2018