Legal Research
Cases
Mannoun v Ristevski

Mannoun v Ristevski

Case [2024] NSWDC 564 29 November 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mannoun v Ristevski [2024] NSWDC 564
Hearing dates: 30 September 2024
Date of orders: 29 November 2024
Decision date: 29 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff’s statement of claim is struck out and dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.

Catchwords:
TORT – defamation – early determination of “serious harm” pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A (1) and (4)
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 10A(1)
Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 10A(1)
Defamation Act 2005 (Tas), s 10A(1)
Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 10A(1)
Defamation Act 2013 (UK), s 1
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.30(2)(c), 28.2

Cases Cited:
Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] 3 WLR 167; [2023] KB 524
Coker v Nwakanma [2021] EWHC 1011 (QB)
Defteros v Google LLC [2021] VSCA 167
Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 WLR 1
Gayed v Virgin Mary & St Markorious Coptic Orthodox Church [2024] NSWSC 1232
George v Cannell [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB)
Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; (2020) AC 612
Lee v Brown [2022] EWHC 1699 (QB)
Lorbek v King [2022] VSC 218
McDonald v Dods [2017] VSCA 129
Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433; [2017] 4 WLR 68
Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249
Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors(No 3) [2024] QSC 192
Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] SASC 137
Prouten v Buxton [2024] NSWCA 262
Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198
Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991
Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085
Selkirk v Wyatt (2024) 302 FCR 541; [2024] FCAFC 48
Sivananthan v Vasikaran [2022] EWHC 2938 (KB)
Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB)
Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB)
Webb v Jones [2021] EWHC 1618 (QB)
Wilson v Mendelsohn [2024] EWHC 821 (KB)
ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2040 (QB)
Zimmerman v Perkiss [2022] NSWDC 448

Texts Cited:
C Sewell, “More serious harm than good? An empirical observation and analysis of the effects of the serious harm requirement in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013”, (2020) Journal of Media Law DOI: 10.1080/177577632.2020.1776560
Dr Stephen Bogle and Dr Bobby Lindsay “How serious is the serious harm threshold?” (Working draft as at 22 March 2024), SSRN, David Rolph, Rolph on Defamation (2nd ed, 2024, Law Book Co.)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ned Mannoun (Plaintiff)
Peter Ristevski (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Smark SC and Mr Elachkar (Plaintiff)
Mr N Olson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Hall Partners (Plaintiff)
Mark O’Brien Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00273504
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The application before the court

These are proceedings for defamation arising from a Facebook comment pleaded to…

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 Mannoun v Ristevski

Details

AGLC: Mannoun v Ristevski [2024] NSWDC 564
Case: [2024] NSWDC 564
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mannoun v Ristevski was heard in a lower court in Australia, where the plaintiff, Mannoun, sought to sue the defendant, Ristevski, for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made defamatory statements about him, causing him serious harm. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had met the threshold for establishing "serious harm" as required by section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

The court had to consider whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to meet the threshold for "serious harm" as outlined in the statute. The court examined the nature and extent of the alleged harm caused by the defendant's statements, including the impact on the plaintiff's reputation, mental health, and personal relationships. The court also considered the relevance of the plaintiff's previous criminal convictions in assessing the seriousness of the harm caused by the defamatory statements.

The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the threshold for "serious harm" as required by section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish that the harm caused by the defendant's statements was of a serious nature. Accordingly, the court struck out and dismissed the plaintiff's statement of claim. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs, with liberty to apply.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff’s statement of claim is struck out and dismissed.

(2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Mannoun v Ristevski [2024] NSWDC 564

Most Recent Citation

Setia v Radio Haanji [2025] VCC 44

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Setia v Radio Haanji
[2025] VCC 44

…y v Odhams Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333; Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050; Howe v Zuchowski [2024] VSCA 56 ; Mannoun v Ristevski [2024] NSWDC 564; Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) QSC 192; Prouten v Buxton (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 445; Riley v Sivier [2022] EWHC 2891 (KB); [2023] EMLR 6; Raider v Haines [2022…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

Prouten v Buxton
[2024] NSWCA 262 Para 105

…When considering the seriousness of an imputation, that imputation must be viewed in context, as Basten AJA stated in Prouten v Buxton [2024] NSWCA 262 at [4] – [5]. Mr Smark submitted that, whatever the publication’s context, “an allegation of specific wrongdoing may still hit home”, especially if it is in a diffe…
Gayed v Virgin Mary & St Markorious Coptic Orthodox Church
[2024] NSWSC 1232 Para 4

…a preliminary issue and/or at trial. These are generally disregarded by courts of record ( Gayed v Virgin Mary & St Markorious Coptic Orthodox Church [2024] NSWSC 1232 at [6]). As nearly all “small” defamation claims (i.e. claims likely to give rise to serious harm issues being raised, whether as a preliminary or tr…
Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3)
[2024] FCA 991 Para 17

…hittington [2022] NSWSC 249 at [30] – [46] and [60] – [68]) as well as differences in case management procedure ( Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991), and caution must be observed as a result, the decisions on s 1 of the UK Act provide a body of settled principles which may be of assistance to courts…
Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3)
[2024] QSC 192 Para 2

…preliminary issue: Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240; Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085 and Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2024] QSC 192.…
Selkirk v Wyatt
[2024] FCAFC 48 Para 14

…) by Brereton JA (as well as the rider added by Basten AJA at [91]) in Rader is reviewed and confirmed in Selkirk v Wyatt (2024) 302 FCR 541; [2024] FCAFC 48 at [51] – [52], as is Lachaux itself (at [43]-[50] and [91]-[106]). Judgments relevant to a consideration of “serious harm” in Australia may be briefly noted…
Selkirk v Hocking (No 2)
[2023] FCA 1085 Para 2

…of courts of record where serious harm has been determined as a preliminary issue: Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240; Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085 and Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2024] QSC 192.…
Supaphien v Chaiyabarn
[2023] ACTSC 240 Para 2

…There are decisions of courts of record where serious harm has been determined as a preliminary issue: Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240; Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085 and Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2024] QSC 192.…
Zimmerman v Perkiss
[2022] NSWDC 448 Para 1

…s heard over the five-year period from the enactment of s 1 (1 January 2014) to 31 December 2018. I referred to this study in Zimmerman v Perkiss [2022] NSWDC 448 but there have been no other references to it.…
Rader v Haines
[2022] NSWCA 198 Para 14

…rement, courts are developing a body of caselaw as to the establishment of serious harm. The most frequently cited of these decisions, Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198 (“ Rader ”), predates this legislative reform and is in fact a consideration of serious harm under s 1 of the UK Act, as the matter complained of was…
Lorbek v King
[2022] VSC 218 Para 84

…a bare handful of people. It is not enough for a publication to be uploaded onto the internet, even on a frequently accessed page. In Lorbek v King [2022] VSC 218, about 1500 people accessed the plaintiffs’ business website each day, but there was no electronic evidence of anyone having clicked onto the Google re…
Newman v Whittington
[2022] NSWSC 249 Para 17

…t of extensive academic as well as judicial commentary. While there are subtle differences between s 10A and s 1 of the UK Act ( Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249 at [30] – [46] and [60] – [68]) as well as differences in case management procedure ( Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991), and caution mu…
Defteros v Google LLC
[2021] VSCA 167 Para 84

…ng there is no platform of facts on which an inference can be drawn as to the extent of publication” (at [71]; see also Defteros v Google LLC [2021] VSCA 167 at [245] – [257] in relation to a triviality defence where most of the readers were likely to have been the lawyers retained by the parties).…
Lachaux (Respondent) v Independent Print Ltd and another (Appellants)
[2019] UKSC 27 Para 14

…us harm under s 1 of the UK Act, as the matter complained of was published in the United Kingdom. The analysis of Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; (2020) AC 612 (“ Lachaux ”) by Brereton JA (as well as the rider added by Basten AJA at [91]) in Rader is reviewed and confirmed in Selkirk v Wyatt (202…
McDonald v Dods
[2017] VSCA 129 Para 61

…“Platform of facts” evidence ( McDonald v Dods [2017] VSCA 129 at [30]; Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] SASC 137 at [414] – [415]) is generally used to establish that the matter complained of must have been read by somebody even though there is little or no evidence of this. It should be t…
Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2016] SASC 137 Para 61

…“Platform of facts” evidence ( McDonald v Dods [2017] VSCA 129 at [30]; Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] SASC 137 at [414] – [415]) is generally used to establish that the matter complained of must have been read by somebody even though there is little or no evidence of this. It should be t…
[2023] KB 524
[2023] KB 524 Para 102

…This is what occurred in Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] 3 WLR 167; [2023] KB 524 (“ Cadwalladr ”). The matters complained of in Cadwalladr were a TED talk and a tweet attaching a link to the talk. In terms of content and research, these could not have been more different to the matter complained of in these proceedin…
[2017] 4 WLR 68
[2017] 4 WLR 68 Para 70

…or already dislike the plaintiff does not mean that serious harm has not occurred. Mr Smark SC emphasized that, in Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433; [2017] 4 WLR 68 at [8], Warby J stated:…
[2018] 4 WLR 1
[2018] 4 WLR 1 Para 77

…21] EWHC 1011 (QB) at [33] per Saini J), in that serious harm may be established even if there is publication to only one person ( Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 WLR 1 at [55]). In George v Cannell [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB) at [118], it was emphasized that the quality of the publications, not their quantity, is the key:…
(2020) AC 612
(2020) AC 612 Para 14

…1 of the UK Act, as the matter complained of was published in the United Kingdom. The analysis of Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; (2020) AC 612 (“ Lachaux ”) by Brereton JA (as well as the rider added by Basten AJA at [91]) in Rader is reviewed and confirmed in Selkirk v Wyatt (2024) 302 FCR 541;…
[2023] 3 WLR 167
[2023] 3 WLR 167 Para 102

…This is what occurred in Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] 3 WLR 167; [2023] KB 524 (“ Cadwalladr ”). The matters complained of in Cadwalladr were a TED talk and a tweet attaching a link to the talk. In terms of content and research, these could not have been more different to the matter complained of in these proceedings.…
Greenwich v Latham
[2024] FCA 1050 Para 3

…Serious harm was determined at trial level in Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Defamation Act 2005 (TAS)
10A, 10A(1) 3 mentions (from Para 2)
Defamation Act 2013
1 2 mentions (from Para 4)
Firebelt Pty Ltd v Brambles Australia Ltd
1 2 mentions (from Para 4)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
14.30(2)(c), 28.2 2 mentions (from Para 2)
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT)
122A(1) 1 mention (from Para 3)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Mannoun v Ristevski [2024] NSWDC 564
Hearing dates:	30 September 2024
Date of orders:	29 November 2024
Decision date:	29 November 2024
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff’s statement of claim is struck out and dismissed. (2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – early determination of “serious harm” pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Legislation Cited:	Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A (1) and (4) Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), s 10A(1) Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 10A(1) Defamation Act 2005 (Tas), s 10A(1) Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 10A(1) Defamation Act 2013 (UK), s 1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.30(2)(c), 28.2
Cases Cited:	Banks v Cadwalladr [2023] 3 WLR 167; [2023] KB 524 Coker v Nwakanma [2021] EWHC 1011 (QB) Defteros v Google LLC [2021] VSCA 167 Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 WLR 1 Gayed v Virgin Mary & St Markorious Coptic Orthodox Church [2024] NSWSC 1232 George v Cannell [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB) Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050 Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27; (2020) AC 612 Lee v Brown [2022] EWHC 1699 (QB) Lorbek v King [2022] VSC 218 McDonald v Dods [2017] VSCA 129 Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433; [2017] 4 WLR 68 Newman v Whittington [2022] NSWSC 249 Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors(No 3) [2024] QSC 192 Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] SASC 137 Prouten v Buxton [2024] NSWCA 262 Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198 Russell v S3@Raw Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 991 Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085 Selkirk v Wyatt (2024) 302 FCR 541; [2024] FCAFC 48 Sivananthan v Vasikaran [2022] EWHC 2938 (KB) Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB) Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240 Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB) Webb v Jones [2021] EWHC 1618 (QB) Wilson v Mendelsohn [2024] EWHC 821 (KB) ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2040 (QB) Zimmerman v Perkiss [2022] NSWDC 448
Texts Cited:	C Sewell, “More serious harm than good? An empirical observation and analysis of the effects of the serious harm requirement in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013”, (2020) Journal of Media Law DOI: 10.1080/177577632.2020.1776560 Dr Stephen Bogle and Dr Bobby Lindsay “How serious is the serious harm threshold?” (Working draft as at 22 March 2024), SSRN, David Rolph, Rolph on Defamation (2nd ed, 2024, Law Book Co.)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ned Mannoun (Plaintiff) Peter Ristevski (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Smark SC and Mr Elachkar (Plaintiff) Mr N Olson (Defendant) Solicitors: Hall Partners (Plaintiff) Mark O’Brien Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2023/00273504
Publication restriction:	Nil