//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 747
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-06-19
Campbell J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Faraj v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 747
Hearing dates: 19 June 2026
Date of orders: 19 June 2026
Decision date: 19 June 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision: (1) The motion having resolved, the plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion.
(2) I direct the plaintiff file a further Amended Statement of Claim incorporating the amendments agreed to inter partes and those the subject of my rulings by 26 June 2026.
(3) I direct the defendant file and serve its defence on or before 7 August 2026.
(3) List the matter for directions on 26 June 2026
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – practice and procedure – whether proposed imputation substantially the same as imputation in concerns notice – no issue of principle
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Hussein Faraj (Plaintiff) (Self Represented)
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiff (Self Represented)
L Norman (Solicitor) (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Banki Haddock Fiora (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2026/00061967
Publication restriction: Nil
HIS HONOUR: This is the second hearing concerning the adequacy of Mr Faraj's pleadings. Mr Faraj is a self-represented litigant, but he has applied himself diligently to present his case in a coherent and detailed manner. The first argument about his statement of claim took place on 27 March 2026, and I gave an ex-tempore judgment that day.
On 2 April, Mr Faraj filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to file a further amended statement of claim expanding the number of imputations that had been the subject of argument on 27 March. That motion was set down for hearing before me today. Ms Norman, solicitor, appears for the defendant. The parties are, with respect, to be congratulated for having consulted with one another and having agreed substantially on the matters initially in dispute. Both parties have taken a sensible attitude to those consultations and to reaching agreement.
It remains that there is an imputation which appears in what is the proposed amended statement of claim as imputation 12. It is in the following terms:
"The plaintiff falsely claimed NuCoin's collapse was due to market manipulation by Alameda Research and FTX and is using these allegations as an excuse to deflect responsibility for the coin's failure without any credible evidence to support the claim."
"In early 2023, [the plaintiff] told NuCoin investors that they were the victims of the collapse of Bankman‑Fried's crypto trading firm, Alameda Research. He told this masthead that NuGenesis had been on the verge of a $100 million payday when Alameda Research collapsed."
"'The scandal has resulted in significant losses for many investors, but NuGenesis has remained resilient and is preparing to launch NuCoin version 2, which could potentially transform the blockchain industry,' NuGenesis says in an April 2023 press release. 'When the coin was launched, Alameda forged our coin and dumped it at a cheap price,' Faraj told followers on Twitter. He also said he had used Nu Genesis's unique technology to uncover Bankman‑Fried's fraud and bring about his downfall. This masthead has been unable to substantiate Faraj's claim."
"Petroulias was gloomy about NuGenesis's future, telling this masthead, 'Nobody's involved. [The plaintiff] is trying to keep it alive, trying to keep it going. And they can't afford to pay anybody anymore.'"
In other parts of the article Mr Petroulias is said to be a person with whom the plaintiff was associated in various business ventures. I should also say that what appears as imputation 12 is concerns imputation “P” in the concerns notice.
Following Ms Norman's submissions and during an exchange with me about them, Mr Faraj appeared to accept that in substance the defendant's submissions were well founded. I also am of the view that they are. In particular, there is nothing in any of those passages, according to my reading of them, which stated or contained the imputation that the cryptocurrency NuCoin collapsed. The only mention of any collapse is the collapse of Alameda Research. There is no mention at all in the passages of “FTX”, nor is there any mention of market manipulation by anyone, let alone Alameda.
Although Mr Faraj disputed that the quoted words at lines 227 and 228 of the subject article were his, it certainly seems that in context and by reference to the express language, that they were sourced to a press release by NuGenesis in April 2023, and that NuGenesis claimed that NuCoin had been forged by Alameda. It remains that the imputation goes well beyond, in my judgment, what the article could be argued to have conveyed about that matter, and to that extent imputation 12, or imputation “P” in the concerns notice, for that matter, are not conveyed by, and are not capable of having been conveyed by, those parts of the article particularised. I accept Ms Norman's submission about that.
Mr Faraj argues that it is a very important allegation, and he maintains that there are many places in the article that could be called to his assistance to demonstrate that the imputation had been made. He also indicates that he is prepared to amend it to fashion an imputation that asserts that the article imputes false a claim to him that NuCoin's loss of value was due to conduct of Alameda Research without any credible evidence to support the claim.
While one gets the flavour of a loss of value in NuCoin from what is written in the article, it does seem to me that there is a legal difficulty with the proposed amendment. That legal difficulty is that the amendment proposed - as I have paraphrased it - doubtless it could be tidied up - is not substantially the same as concerns imputation “P”, which is the imputation relied upon by Mr Faraj. For these reasons, I disallow imputation 12 and the proposed variation of it that Mr Faraj has put from the bar table.
It follows from this that the debate about what appears in the particulars from the second sentence to the end of the particulars falls away, because the particulars will fall with the substantive pleading of the imputation.
I note that other than in relation to proposed imputation 12, the subject of the dispute raised by the plaintiff's notice of motion of 2 April 2026 had been resolved by negotiation between the parties. The remaining dispute about imputation 12 has been resolved in favour of the defendant.
It is also clear from the discussions between the parties that most of the matters in dispute were resolved favourably to the defendant, and that contributes to the consideration that although Mr Faraj will be allowed to file an amended statement of claim incorporating some matters the subject of the motion, the event, which the costs must follow, favours the defendant. My order is that the motion having been resolved the plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.
*********
Faraj
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2)