Kim v Kim

[2025] NSWDC 278

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Kim v Kim [2025] NSWDC 278

Hearing dates:

24 July 2025

Date of orders:

24 July 2025

Decision date:

28 July 2025

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Gibson DCJ

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to rr 13.4 and 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), and ss 10A, 12A and 12B of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), these proceedings are struck out and dismissed.

(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of these proceedings.

Catchwords:

TORT – defamation – plaintiff brings application for default judgment when defendant fails to comply with timetable orders for filing a defence – whether default judgment available where serious harm is a jurisdictional requirement - defendant brings application for summary dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to provide particulars of serious harm in the concerns notices and in the statement of claim, failure to set out the text of the matters complained of and attach copies and errors in pleading the imputations – statement of claim struck out and dismissed with costs

Legislation Cited:

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 10A, 12A, 12B

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.4, 14.28, 14.30, 15.19

Cases Cited:

Altarama Ltd v Forsyth [1981] 1 NSWLR 188

Amersi v Leslie & Anor [2023] EWHC 1368

Bindel v PinkNews Media Group Ltd &Anor [2021] EWHC 1868 (QB)

Graham v Powell (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 185

Mond v The Age Company Pty Limited [2025] FCA 442

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Plaintiff:
Hoon Il Kim

Defendant:
Jae Jung Kim

Representation:

Solicitors:
Cambridge Lawyers (Plaintiff)
HIS Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2025/00118094

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

The claim before the Court

1. These are proceedings for defamation for a series of publications asserted to have been made by the defendant at a time when he and the plaintiff were in dispute about a business investment. Two Concerns Notices were sent. The defendant’s solicitor made a request for particulars of the second of these Concerns Notices, which was not answered prior to the statement of claim being filed on 26 March 2025.

2. The parties did not attend Court on the first return date. Instead, the parties entered into a consent timetable for answers to particulars and the filing of a defence by 29 May 2025. When this did not occur, the parties sought, by consent, to extend the date for filing to 20 June 2025.

3. The defendant’s failure to file a defence in accordance with these consent orders is the basis of the plaintiff’s application for default judgment. The plaintiff’s failure to provide particulars of harm, failure to answer the defendant’s request for particulars before commencing proceedings and failure to identify the imputations arising from each publication are the basis of the defendant’s application for summary dismissal.

The Parties’ Applications

4. The plaintiff seeks the following orders:

1. Default judgment be entered;

2. These proceedings be listed for assessment of damages;

3. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs.

5. The defendant seeks the following orders:

1. The concerns notice dated 3 October 2025 be deemed…