HANNA v MAKS [2003] NSWSC 158

HANNA v MAKS [2003] NSWSC 158

The plaintiff's predominant purpose in instituting the proceedings was to intimidate, punish and cause commercial damage to the first and second defendants as revenge for their cooperation with authorities during criminal proceedings, rather than vindicate his reputation, and therefore the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Judgment on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Action dismissed as abuse of process; costs awarded against plaintiff; exhibits retained for 28 days.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'costs' 'role of Publisher' 'collateral Purpose' 'threatening Notices']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['abuse of Process' 'costs' 'role of Publisher' 'collateral Purpose' 'threatening Notices']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action / Judgment on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Is the plaintiff's action in defamation an abuse of process?" 'Did the second defendant act as a publisher?' 'Is the delivery of Notices to Produce to advertisers a menace or threat and evidence of collateral purpose?']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's predominant purpose in instituting the proceedings was to intimidate, punish and cause commercial damage to the first and second defendants as revenge for their cooperation with authorities during criminal proceedings, rather than vindicate his reputation, and therefore the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as abuse of process; costs awarded against plaintiff; exhibits retained for 28 days.

Orders

  • ["Action removed from Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 21 March 2003." 'Action dismissed against all defendants as an abuse of process.' 'Plaintiff to pay costs of first and second defendants for the action and Notice of Motion.' 'Plaintiff to pay costs or any expenses incurred of third to fifty-fourth...