/

/

Betyounan v Mosolini [2026] NSWSC 553 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Betyounan v Mosolini

[2026] NSWSC 553

Supreme Court of NSW|2026-05-15|Before: Campbell J

View on NSW Caselaw

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2026-05-15

Before

Campbell J

Catchwords

DEFAMATION – practice and procedure – referral for early and separate determination of serious harm on judicial officer’s own motion

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

DEFAMATION – practice and procedure – referral for early and separate determination of serious harm on judicial officer’s own motion

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Betyounan v Mosolini [2026] NSWSC 553

Hearing dates: 15 May 2026

Date of orders: 15 May 2026

Decision date: 15 May 2026

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Campbell J

Decision: (1) Dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on behalf of the defendant on 10 April 2026.
(2) Order plaintiffs to pay Defendant’s costs of the notice of motion filed on 10 April 2026.
(3) Direct the plaintiffs to file a further amended statement of claim conforming with my rulings today and marked “filed pursuant to the orders of Campbell J of 15 May 2026” on or before 5 June 2026.
(4) The defendants are to file a defence to the further amended statement of claim on or before 16 June 2026.
(5) The plaintiffs are to file any reply on or before 26 June 2026.
(6) List the matter for directions in the defamation list on 26 June 2026 with a view to fixing the matter for a separate hearing in accordance with s 10A(4)-(5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) for the determination of the question of whether the publication of the defamatory matters complained of have caused or are likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of each of the plaintiffs.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – practice and procedure – referral for early and separate determination of serious harm on judicial officer’s own motion

Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A(4)-(5)

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: D Betyounan (Plaintiff)
A Mosolini (First Defendant)
Sunnyland Group Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)

Representation: Counsel: Self-represented (Plaintiff) M Cakic (Solicitor) (First Defendant) Solicitors: Self-represented (Plaintiff) MC Lawyers (Defendants)

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiffs sue the defendants for defamation. The background for the claim is that the defendants had previously sued the plaintiffs for defamation and those proceedings were settled without admission of liability. After the orders were entered, the defendants published on their website and on social media platforms a matter relating to the outcome of those previous defamation proceedings which the plaintiffs regard as defamatory of them. They filed a Statement of Claim on 4 September 2025. The defendant took objections to the form of the Statement of Claim. The plaintiffs have in these proceedings been self-represented and, when the matter was before my colleague Rothman J on 9 December 2025, he directed that the plaintiffs file an amended statement of claim by 5pm on 9 March 2026. That long period of time was allowed, I infer, given the fact that the plaintiffs were and remain self-represented.
I brought the matter forward when I was appointed defamation list judge to 27 February 2026 and, on that occasion, I extended the time for the filing and service of the Amended Statement of Claim to 27 March 2026.
When the matter came before me on that day the plaintiffs had still not complied with the order. On that occasion Mrs Betyounan appeared on behalf of herself and her husband and sought further time to comply with the order. That application was opposed by Mr Cakic, solicitor, who appeared for the defendant. I declined to extend the time further, and I directed that the defendant file and serve any motion seeking dismissal for want of due dispatch by 10 April and for the plaintiffs to file any evidence in reply on or before 17 April 2026. I listed the matter for further directions and possible hearing on 24 April 2026. The Notice of Motion was duly filed on 10 April 2026 with an affidavit in support.
On the evening prior to the listing, that is to say 23 April 2026 at 7.58pm, an Amended Statement of Claim was filed on the Online Registry. In view of that development, I declined to deal with the motion but stood it over until today. I made directions as to the exchange of objections and arguments in relation to it, which the parties complied with.
Mr Cakic was still desirous of proceeding with the motion, but I took the view that, given that the plaintiffs had made what I thought was a fair attempt to comply, albeit belatedly, with the orders, and as the exchange of objections narrowed the field of dispute, I decided that the plaintiffs had sufficiently mended their hand for it to be inappropriate to order dismissal for want of prosecution, although the application had been brought in circumstances which were entirely reasonable.
I have ruled today on the remaining disputes about the form of the amended statement of claim and I am about to make some directions in relation to the further management of the matter.
I have raised with the parties that I have formed the view in accordance with the provisions of s 10A(4) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) that the matter is an appropriate matter for me to order a separate hearing of the question of whether the impugned publications cause or are likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of each of Mr Betyounan and Mrs Betyounan, and for that purpose I will make some directions.
The circumstances that have led me to that conclusion are that the publications were online for, as I understand it, a relatively short period of time, and the audience, or the group of persons, class of persons for whom the publications were made, is likely to have been limited. Having said that, I have no preconceived notion of whether serious harm has been caused. That will be a matter for the separate hearing once I order it. It just seems to me, as I have said, this is an appropriate case.
I therefore order as follows:
Dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on behalf of the defendant on 10 April 2026.
Order plaintiffs to pay Defendant’s costs of the notice of motion filed on 10 April 2026.
Direct the plaintiffs to file a further amended statement of claim conforming with my rulings today and marked “filed pursuant to the orders of Campbell J of 15 May 2026” on or before 5 June 2026.
The defendants are to file a defence to the further amended statement of claim on or before 16 June 2026.
The plaintiffs are to file any reply on or before 26 June 2026.
List the matter for directions in the defamation list on 26 June 2026 with a view to fixing the matter for a separate hearing in accordance with s 10A(4) and (5) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) for the determination of the question of whether the publication of the defamatory matters complained of have caused or are likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of each of the plaintiffs.