Nikjoo v Joneidi

[2025] NSWSC 1025

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Nikjoo v Joneidi [2025] NSWSC 1025

Hearing dates:

2 May 2025

Date of orders:

9 September 2025

Decision date:

09 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Rothman J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to the terms of s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and pursuant to the general powers of the Court, the Court strikes out the purported defence filed by the defendant electronically on 22 April 2025 and issues default judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.

(2)   Within seven days of the date of this order, the defendant shall take all steps to remove from the internet or any social media platform any website, article, advertisement or document referring to or identifying the plaintiff and imputing or alleging of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a convicted thief, is a thief, is untrustworthy, is crooked, is a con artist, is an incompetent lawyer, fails to act in the best interests of his clients, has committed forgery, is involved in fraudulent activities, has been involved in insurance fraud or has been identified by a Court as having been involved in fraud.

(3)   The defendant is restrained from distributing or publishing to anyone other than the plaintiff, or repeating or continuing to publish in hard copy or soft copy, on the internet or through social media platforms, any website, article, review, advertisement, document, or description imputing or alleging of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a convicted thief, is a thief, is untrustworthy, is crooked, is a con artist, is an incompetent lawyer, fails to act in the best interests of his clients, has committed forgery, is involved in fraudulent activities, has been involved in insurance fraud or has been identified by a Court as having been involved in fraud.

(4)   The defendant has leave to file a submission within 14 days of the date of receipt of this order as to why the injunction above ought not to continue.

(5)   The Court directs the plaintiff to serve the defendant with these orders within 48 hours of the date hereof.

(6)   No order as to costs.

(7)   Otherwise, the proceedings are dismissed.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — default judgment — default in filing defence — self-represented litigants — the defence filed was not a bona fide attempt to comply with court orders — the defence was not of any substance or in proper form — defendant restrained from distributing or publishing defamatory material about the plaintiff

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 61

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A

Defamation Act 2005-2020 (NSW), s 33

Cases Cited:

Nil

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Fardin Nikjoo (Plaintiff) (self-represented)
Majid Joneidi (Defendant) (self-represented)

Representation:

Counsel:

Solicitors:

File Number(s):

2024/25816

Publication restriction:

N/A

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: By a statement of claim filed 19 January 2024, the plaintiff sought removal of all defamatory material or publications and monetary damages. Each of the parties is self-represented and neither has dealt with the matter expeditiously.

2. After some initial skirmishes, the matter first came before the Court as presently constituted on 26 April 2024. On that date, the Court issued an ex tempore judgment and made orders pending final determination of the proceedings to the effect that neither party should publish material critical of the other party (other than to each other).

3. The matter was listed in the defamation list each month with only an occasional appearance by either party. No defence had been filed.

4. Eventually, the plaintiff moved on notice for orders that the defendant file and serve a defence and evidence, answer interrogatories (the request for which had been sent at the same time as the motion), immediately remove all defamatory publications and an order prohibiting the defendant from any future publication. The motion was supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff of 19 March 2025 which attached certain Google reviews allegedly posted by the defendant in contravention of the interlocutory orders.

5. When the matter came on for hearing on 25 October 2024, the Court was informed that the proceedings had been settled in principle on the basis of undertakings and the Court adjourned the matter pending the undertakings being provided to the Court in writing.

6. By notice of motion filed 19 March 2025 with supporting material, the Court was informed that the undertakings, which had not been provided in writing, had been breached. The plaintiff sought further orders for the filing of a defence, an answer to interrogatories, the removal of defamatory content and a restraint on the defendant publishing or causing to publish any further material of like kind.

7. The motion dated 19 March 2025 came on for hearing on 25 March 2025 at which time, pursuant to the provisions of s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the Court made the following orders:

1. The defendant shall file and serve a defence by 5pm, Tuesday, 15 April 2025.

2. The Court grants leave to each of the plaintiff and defendant to file any motion relating to any interlocutory orders by 5pm, Monday, 21 April 2025.

3. The Court listed the matter for mention at 9.30am, Friday, 2 May 2025.

8. By motion dated 21 April 2025, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. On 22 April 2025, the defendant filed a defence, the full content of which was: “Not guilty.”

9. The issues between the parties commenced with an issue over the costs of a fence shared between them dating from October 2023. The issues, on their face, are trivial. No defence has been filed raising triviality. [1]

   1. Defamation Act 2005-2020 (NSW), s 33.

10. The defence of triviality was repealed when s 10A of the extant Defamation Act was inserted. The provisions of s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) require a plaintiff to prove, as an element of a cause of action for defamation, that the publication of the defamatory material has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the plaintiff. No aspect of the statement of claim filed in 2024 deals with serious harm.

11. When the proceedings were called on in the defamation list on 2 May 2025, there was no appearance for the defendant and the Court indicated that it would, again pursuant to the terms of s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act and the powers of the Court otherwise available, issue injunctive relief, in accordance with the agreement previously reached, but in terms that were not ambiguous as were the terms of the undertakings that were the subject of that agreement.

12. The Court indicated that those orders would be made by default and would be enforceable forthwith, but the Court would provide to the defendant a further 21 days in which to make any application for vacation of the orders or any other order varying the orders. Other than the continuation of the permanent injunction, the matter would be otherwise dismissed. The plaintiff agreed with that course.

13. Notwithstanding the indication by the Court, the Court also provided the defendant 21 days before any such orders would issue. The Court has received no communication from the defendant since 2 May 2025, despite the abundance of communication provided previously.

14. The Court does not consider that the “defence” filed electronically on 21 April 2025 was a bona fide attempt to comply with the orders of the Court previously made.

15. The Court considers the defendant to be in default in a number of respects. First, the defendant has failed to file a defence of any substance or in proper form. Secondly, the defendant has, notwithstanding the listing of the matter on a number of occasions, failed to appear.

16. In the circumstances, the Court issues the following orders:

1. Pursuant to the terms of s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and pursuant to the general powers of the Court, the Court strikes out the purported defence filed by the defendant electronically on 22 April 2025 and issues default judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.

2. Within seven days of the date of this order, the defendant shall take all steps to remove from the internet or any social media platform any website, article, advertisement or document referring to or identifying the plaintiff and imputing or alleging of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a convicted thief, is a thief, is untrustworthy, is crooked, is a con artist, is an incompetent lawyer, fails to act in the best interests of his clients, has committed forgery, is involved in fraudulent activities, has been involved in insurance fraud or has been identified by a Court as having been involved in fraud.

3. The defendant is restrained from distributing or publishing to anyone other than the plaintiff, or repeating or continuing to publish in hard copy or soft copy, on the internet or through social media platforms, any website, article, review, advertisement, document, or description imputing or alleging of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a convicted thief, is a thief, is untrustworthy, is crooked, is a con artist, is an incompetent lawyer, fails to act in the best interests of his clients, has committed forgery, is involved in fraudulent activities, has been involved in insurance fraud or has been identified by a Court as having been involved in fraud.

4. The defendant has leave to file a submission within 14 days of the date of receipt of this order as to why the injunction above ought not to continue.

5. The Court directs the plaintiff to serve the defendant with these orders within 48 hours of the date hereof.

6. No order as to costs.

7. Otherwise, the proceedings are dismissed.

**********

Endnote

Decision last updated: 09 September 2025