Naoum v Dannawi

Case [2009] NSWCA 253


Reported Decision: 75 NSWLR 216[2010] ALMD 6440[2010] ALMD 6364

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Naoum v Dannawi [2009] NSWCA 253
HEARING DATE(S): 14 August 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

21 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Macfarlan JA at 39
DECISION: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – equitable remedies – injunctions – permanent injunction sought to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter – no hearing of substantive issues sought – necessity for final hearing before grant of permanent injunction
LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; (2001) 208 CLR 199
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269
Chappell v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 153
Church of Scientology v Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 344
Commodore Business Machines Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1990) 92 ALR 563
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; (2003) 77 ALJR 1657
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Stocker v McElhinney (No 2) [1961] NSWR 1043
Y & Z v W [2007] NSWCA 329; (2007) 70 NSWLR 377
TEXTS CITED: R Meagher, J Heydon, M Leeming, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrines and Remedies, 4th ed, (2002), Butterworths Lexis Nexis P W Young, Declaratory Orders, 2nd ed (1984) Butterworths
PARTIES: Robert Naoum – Applicant
Nabil Zafer Dannawi - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40284/09
COUNSEL: C A Evatt with S Milanovic - Applicant
S Chrysanthou with P A Maddigan – Respondent
SOLICITORS: Cadmus Lawyers – Applicant
Mitry Lawyers - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20373/09
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Harrison J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 August 2009





                          CA 40284/09
                          SC 20373/09

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          McCOLL JA
                          MACFARLAN JA

                          Friday 21 August 2009
Robert Naoum v Nabil Zafer Dannawi
Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with McColl JA.

2 McCOLL JA: Robert Naoum, the Consul General for Lebanon in Sydney, the applicant, moved in the Supreme Court for orders, among others, restraining Nabil Zafer Dannawi, the respondent, from further publishing allegedly defamatory material on his website and restraining him from causing that material to be posted or published on any other website or on the internet.

3 Pursuant to Practice Note SC CL 4(25) the application for an injunction, being an application against publication of defamatory matter, was made in the Common Law Division rather than the Equity Division. The proceedings came before Patten AJ on 5 August 2009 on which occasion both parties were represented, the applicant by Mr C Evatt and the respondent by Mr P H Maddigan. Although the application was opposed, his Honour made the following orders:

          “1. The defendant be restrained from…

Continue reading Naoum v Dannawi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Naoum v Dannawi [2009] NSWCA 253
Case
[2009] NSWCA 253
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal concerning a permanent injunction sought to restrain the publication of allegedly defamatory material. The applicant, Naoum, sought this injunction against the respondent, Dannawi, without a hearing of the substantive issues of the defamation claim.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a permanent injunction could be granted to restrain the publication of allegedly defamatory material in circumstances where the substantive issues of the defamation claim had not been heard and determined.

The Court of Appeal held that a permanent injunction is a final remedy and, as such, requires a final determination of the substantive issues in the underlying cause of action. The Court reasoned that to grant a permanent injunction without such a determination would be to grant final relief without the necessary findings of fact and law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

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.