Maatouk v Katrib

[2022] NSWDC 463

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Maatouk v Katrib [2022] NSWDC 463

Hearing dates:

6 October 2022

Date of orders:

11 October 2022

Decision date:

11 October 2022

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Gibson DCJ

Decision:

(1)   Judgment and other orders entered on 7 July 2022 set aside.

(2)   Costs of this application reserved.

(3)   The parties are to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting a timetable for the future conduct of these proceedings.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - defendant fails to communicate with her pro bono lawyers, who do not file an amended defence conformably with a timetable - prior history of unsatisfactory pleading by both the plaintiff’s lawyers and the defendant’s previous lawyers - history of delay on both sides - whether entry of default judgment warranted - whether a defence on the merits was made out - no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 12A,12B, 46

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16(2)

Cases Cited:

Altarama Ltd v Forsyth [1981] 1 NSWLR 188

Bazzi v Dutton [2022] FCAFC 84

Bindel v PinkNews Media Group Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1868 (QB)

Cumberland v Clark (1996) 39 NSWLR 514

Flanagan v Urban Publishing Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 238

French v Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 36

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

Hanrahan v Ainsworth (1985) 1 NSWLR 370

Massarani v Kriz [2022] FCA 80

The Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394

Woods v Baxter [2021] NSWDC 265

Texts Cited:

District Court Practice Note (Civil) No. 6

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Plaintiff: Mr Peter Maatouk
Defendant: Ms Rima Katrib

Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr T Senior
Defendant: Mr R Potter SC

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Madison Marcus
Defendant: RGS Law (Pro Bono)

File Number(s):

2021/00329668

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

The applications before the court

1. There are two applications before the court:

1. The defendant brings an application to set aside a default judgment entered on 7 July 2022.

2. The plaintiff resists the application and seeks orders permitting the assessment of damages to proceed.

2. The plaintiff relies upon two affidavits:

1. The affidavit of Mr Johnathon de la Hoyde sworn on 9 September 2022.

2. A second, confidential affidavit of Mr de la Hoyde, sworn on the same date.

3. The defendant relies upon three affidavits:

1. The defendant’s affidavit sworn on 22 August 2022.

2. The affidavits of Ms Sophie Lumsden sworn on 22 August and 4 October 2022.

The circumstances leading to the matter complained of

4. The plaintiff and defendant, who were formerly husband and wife, separated in February 2020 and were subsequently divorced. Between March and November 2020, the defendant made a series of allegedly defamatory posts on social media and sent an email in similar terms to the plaintiff’s office staff. A concerns notice was sent on 31 March 2021, followed by a series of emails up to 6 July 2021.

5. The defendant published four further publications in July 2021 and a further concerns notice was sent on…