Hussein Elachkar

Tertiary Education
BCom(Accounting)/LLB (UNSW)

Admitted to the Legal Profession
2010

Areas of Practice

  • Administrative Law
  • Building & Construction
  • Commercial Law
  • Defamation Law
  • Equity and trusts
  • Family Law
  • Family Provisions & Probate
  • Real Property

Previous Professional Experience

Credit and Investments Ombudsman:
2010 – 2012

Energy and Water Ombudsman:
2012 – 2014

Birchgrove Legal:
2014 – 2018

Selected Cases

Alsuleiman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor

Acting for the applicant, a leading Australian imam, in Defamation proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the publishers of the Daily Telegraph and Courier Mail. The case raises a number of important issues, including in relation to the defence of truth at common law and its differentiation from the truth defence pursuant to the s25 Defamation Act.

CYD v Secretary of the Department of Education NSW

Acted for the applicant in a successful administrative appeal in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal concerning a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Education to cancel the applicant’s family day care provider approval pursuant to s33(1)(a) Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (NSW).

Etihaf & Etihaf

Acted for the Applicant in Family Court of Australia proceedings concerning property and children, with a range of issues including Airport Watchlist Orders following threats of removing the children from the jurisdiction of Australia, family violence, drug use, and the enforcement of orders for sale of the matrimonial property in circumstances where a child resided at the property.

Carr v Chan

Acted for the defendant in Family Provisions proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW.

Mohammed v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Acted for the applicant mufti in defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW against the publisher of the Daily Telegraph. The case raised some interesting questions, including the approach to be adopted in considering a strike out application regarding particulars in support of a justification defence.

Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd v The Department of Education & Training

Acted for the Applicant (the provider of a family day care service) in an administrative appeal of a decision by the Secretary of the Department to cancel the applicant’s Commonwealth approval to receive Child Care Benefit payments pursuant to A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

Uzunlar & Uzunlar

Acted for the Applicant in the Family Court of Australia for urgent ex parte orders, including Airport Watchlist orders, and in subsequent related proceedings concerning property and children.

Warringah Timbers Pty Ltd v Mackenzie

Acted for the Defendant supplier in commercial proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW concerning alleged non-payment of ongoing trade debts, and further alleged Corporations Act civil penalty provisions, including under s182.