Federal Court of Australia

Mcintyre v Nine Entertainment Co Pty Limited [2026] FCA 1659

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application is dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application is dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

1    On 17 September 2026, Mr Jamie McIntyre commenced two defamation proceedings in this Court. The first was against Nine Entertainment Co Pty Ltd. The second was against Nationwide News Pty Limited. Each application was supported by a statement of claim signed by Mr McIntyre as a litigant in person. They described Mr Mcintyre as an Australian citizen who resides in Indonesia. The applications concerned publications about alleged investigations in Bali of a retirement villa investment.

2    Each application identified an address in Barrack Street, Perth and an email address as Mr Mcinytre's address for service for the purposes of the proceedings. The same email address was provided on the footer to the documents.

3    Both proceedings were allocated to my docket. On 16 October 2026, an email was sent by my associate to the specified email address. It referred to both proceedings in the subject line. It advised that a case management hearing would be held on 2 November 2026. The email included the following notifications:

I note that the respondents have not yet filed a notice of acting in these matters. Would the applicant please ensure this correspondence is brought to their attention. If the respondents have not filed a notice of acting, the applicant must be able to demonstrate proper service before being able to proceed.

If the applicant seeks to conduct proceedings from outside Australia as a litigant in person, the applicant will need to persuade the Court that he can do so without leave, and if leave is required he will need to persuade the Court as to why leave should be given.

Well before the scheduled first case management hearing (and any future case management hearings), the parties should consider any orders that may be appropriate by way of case management. Proposed orders should be communicated to the other side well before the hearing.

No later than 10.00 am on the day prior to the case management hearing, each party should send by email to associate.colvinj@fedcourt.gov.au a minute of proposed case management orders. If some or all of the proposed orders are agreed between the parties, then the agreed orders should be identified.

If counsel or a party in person seeks to appear via video-link then a request for leave from the Court to do so should be made as soon as possible. This will enable appropriate arrangements to be made if leave is given.

(Original emphasis)

4    The email requested an acknowledgment of receipt. No acknowledgment was received.

5    On the morning of 2 November 2026, an email was sent by my associate to Mr McIntyre at the specified email address. It included the previous email. It was in the following terms:

I refer to the below email.

The parties are reminded that a case management hearing has been listed for today at 10.15 am AWST.

If the parties seek to appear by video-link, leave must be sought by sending a request by email.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

(Original emphasis)

6    There was no response to the email and there was no appearance at the case management hearing. No affidavit of service had been filed and there was no indication on the Court file that the respondents had been notified of the case management hearing.

7    Rule 5.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) provides that a party, or the party's lawyer, must attend any hearing for a proceeding. Further, a party who does not attend a hearing in the proceedings is in default: r 5.22(c). If an applicant is in default, a respondent may apply for the proceedings to be dismissed: r 5.23(1)(b). The Court may at any stage of a proceeding exercise any power mentioned in the Rules on its own initiative: r 1.40. The Court may also make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of justice: r 1.32. It is not in the interests of justice for the Court to send communications to parties only to have them ignored. Nor is it in the interests of justice for the Court to convene hearings and to make the necessary arrangements for the hearing only for there to be no attendance.

8    In circumstances where the applicant had not responded to the email communications from the Court sent to his email address for service, had not made any request for arrangements to appear remotely, had not sought leave to appear remotely and had not provided any evidence of service of the proceedings, I determined that it was appropriate for the proceedings to be dismissed by reason of the default by Mr McIntyre.

Associate:

Dated:    4 November 2026