Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jomaa v Denney [2018] NSWSC 76 Hearing dates: 2 February 2018 Decision date: 02 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Orders made for substituted service Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim for defamation in respect of television broadcast by television station in administration at time of publication – in-house lawyers declining to accept service of pleading against journalist – application for substituted service on journalist Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ali Jomaa (plaintiff) Andrew Denney (defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Richardson (plaintiff) No appearance for the defendant Solicitors: Dakdouk & Associates (plaintiff) File Number(s): 2017/353546 Publication restriction: None Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Ali Jomaa by statement of claim filed on 22 November 2017. The primary defamatory publication sued on is a segment broadcast on "Ten Eyewitness News" on 10 August 2017. However, as the proprietor of Channel 10 was then in administration, the proceedings have been commenced only against the journalist, Mr Andrew Denney, who it appears is still employed by Channel 10. 2. The plaintiff faces the difficulty that, as the television station was in administration at the time of publication, the lawyers who (I expect) would ordinarily accept service of a pleading against a Channel 10 journalist have refused to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks an order for substituted service. 3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Ibrahim Dakouk who has set out the considerable lengths to which the plaintiff has gone in attempting to serve the pleading on the journalist or to persuade the senior legal counsel at Channel 10 to accept service on his behalf. Those attempts have been unsuccessful. 4. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for the plaintiff to serve the defendant in the manner required by law and that an order for substituted service under rule 10.14 is appropriate. 5. For those reasons, I make orders 1, 2 and 3 in the notice of motion filed 4 January 2018 and stand the proceedings over before me on 16 March 2018 for first listing. I direct the plaintiff to inform the defendant of the adjourned date at the time the pleading is served. 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: 13 February 2018