Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tabbaa v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited; Tabbaa v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 227 Hearing dates: 19, 26 February 2016 Date of orders: 26 February 2016 Decision date: 26 February 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Rulings on interrogatories Catchwords: DEFAMATION – interlocutory steps – whether necessary for the resolution of the issues in the proceedings – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Mouhammad Tabbaa (plaintiff in proceedings 2015/79981 and 2015/181496) Pamela June Tabbaa (plaintiff in proceedings 2015/181481) Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (defendant) Representation: Counsel: R Rasmussen (plaintiffs) ATS Dawson (defendant) Solicitors: Turner Freeman (plaintiffs) M & K Lawyers (defendant) File Number(s): 2015/799812015/1814962015/181481 Publication restriction: None Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: This is the second listing (in accordance with Practice Note SC CL 4) of three sets of proceedings for defamation arising out of several publications of broadly the same material. 2. The broadcast examined the circumstances in which a woman is alleged to have been kidnapped when she was a child. Specifically, the broadcasts suggest that, as a result of a conspiracy between other members of her family, the girl was tricked into travelling to Egypt from where she was taken to Syria and effectively kept captive there (in the sense that she had no opportunity to return to Australia) by members of her father's family. 3. The allegations include the contention that she was there treated violently by members of her father's family and ultimately forced to marry a man who was a member of the family and some 15 years her senior. 4. There are three sets of proceedings, which are being case managed together and which I anticipate will probably be heard together. In two of the proceedings the plaintiff is the father, Mouhammad Tabbaa; the third proceeding is brought at the suit of his ex-wife, Pamela Tabbaa. 5. The defendant seeks to interrogate Pamela Tabbaa as to whether she has ever been a victim of threats of violence or acts of violence at the hands of her ex-husband or her son Omar and whether she has ever witnessed either of them making threats of violence or committing acts of violence towards other family members. Category for discovery 3 seeks documents related to those same issues. Pamela Tabbaa objects to answering those interrogatories on the basis that they do not relate to any issue in the proceedings. 6. I heard argument in respect of those matters in the defamation list last Friday. I had not then had an opportunity to read the defence. Since further matters were to be argued today in any event, I reserved my ruling on those particular interrogatories in order to form a view as to whether the question of domestic violence within the family could rationally inform the issues raised by the truth defence. 7. Having considered the content of the defence, I am persuaded that the question whether this was a family in which there was a culture of domestic violence is rationally capable of informing the determination of the issues raised by the truth defence. In particular, I think it is capable of informing the likelihood of the female plaintiff, Pamela Tabbaa, having participated in the alleged conspiracy to remove her own child from Australia to go and live in a country such as Syria in the circumstances alleged. I note that one of the matters particularised is that, whilst in Syria, the girl called her mother by telephone and that her mother apologised for the fact that she had been sent to Jordan, where she went before going to Syria, telling her that it would only be for a year. 8. The assessment of those kinds of allegations is, I think, necessarily likely to be informed by some understanding of any culture of violence meted out to the women of the family by the men of the family. I am further persuaded that the information sought is likely to be exclusively within the knowledge of Pamela Tabbaa and not otherwise available to the defendant. For that reason, I am satisfied that the interrogatories are necessary within the meaning of r 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). 9. Accordingly, I propose to allow those interrogatories. 10. I direct the parties to reduce to a short minute of order my rulings given last Friday and today. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 15 March 2016