Background
On 17 September 2026, Jamie McIntyre commenced two defamation proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia: WAD 343 of 2026 against Nine Entertainment Co Pty Limited and WAD 344 of 2026 against Nationwide News Pty Limited. Each application was supported by a statement of claim signed by Mr McIntyre as a litigant in person. The documents described him as an Australian citizen residing in Indonesia and concerned publications about alleged investigations in Bali of a retirement villa investment.
Each application identified an address in Barrack Street, Perth, and an email address as Mr McIntyre’s address for service. Both proceedings were allocated to Colvin J’s docket. On 16 October 2026, his associate emailed the specified address, referring to both proceedings and advising that a case management hearing would be held on 2 November 2026.
The email noted that the respondents had not filed notices of acting and stated that, if they had not done so, Mr McIntyre would have to demonstrate proper service before proceeding. It also addressed the requirements for conducting proceedings from outside Australia as a litigant in person, proposed case management orders, and requests for leave to appear by video-link. Acknowledgment was requested, but none was received.
The Court’s Holding
On the morning of the hearing, the associate sent a further email, including the earlier correspondence, reminding the parties that the case management hearing was listed for 10.15 am AWST and again explaining that leave was required to appear by video-link. There was no response and no appearance at the hearing. No affidavit of service had been filed, and nothing on the Court file indicated that the respondents had been notified of the hearing.
Colvin J explained that rule 5.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) requires a party, or the party’s lawyer, to attend any hearing. Under rule 5.22(c), a party who does not attend is in default, and rule 5.23(1)(b) permits a respondent to seek dismissal where an applicant is in default. Rules 1.40 and 1.32 respectively allow the Court to exercise rule powers on its own initiative and to make orders it considers appropriate in the interests of justice.
The Court held that it was not in the interests of justice for its communications to be ignored or for hearings and their necessary arrangements to be convened without attendance. Given Mr McIntyre’s failure to respond, request remote-appearance arrangements, seek leave to appear remotely, or provide evidence of service, Colvin J dismissed both proceedings because of his default. The separate order in each proceeding stated: “The application is dismissed.” Neither side appeared through counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Both defamation applications were dismissed on the Court’s own initiative because of the applicant’s default.
- The applicant had not answered Court emails, attended the first case management hearing, sought leave or arrangements for remote appearance, or demonstrated service.
- The decision concerned procedural default at an early case management stage; the Court did not determine the merits of the defamation claims.
- The judgment was delivered on 2 November 2026, with reasons published on 4 November 2026.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s use of its own-motion powers where an applicant does not engage with case management or attend a listed hearing. It also highlights the practical importance of monitoring the nominated address for service, responding to Court communications, and addressing service and remote-appearance requirements promptly.
For self-represented litigants conducting proceedings from overseas, the judgment underscores that residence outside Australia does not remove the need to comply with hearing and case management requirements. The dismissal rested on the particular procedural circumstances and accumulated defaults in these two proceedings, rather than announcing a universal rule governing every overseas litigant or every missed communication.