John Ibrahim’s son, Daniel Taylor, loses second defamation battle against The Sunday Telegraph

For the second time, Daniel Taylor has lost a defamation battle over the in-depth ‘Inside the House of Ibrahim’ investigation.

The son of Kings Cross identity John Ibrahim has lost his appeal of a defamation case against The Sunday Telegraph over a series of stories that delved into the extended Ibrahim family.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel ruled Daniel Taylor, who had previously adopted his father’s surname before dropping it, had not been defamed by a 24-page report published in June 2019 “Inside the house of Ibrahim: Unauthorised”.

The series of stories were informed by more than 900 phone calls that were intercepted by police and then tendered in court during the case of John’s younger brother, Michael Ibrahim, when he was jailed for a maximum of 30 years over an undercover drug sting.

Taylor, whose troubled relationship with his father featured in the articles, sued Nationwide News and journalist Brenden Hills claiming the articles painted him as a mobster, a member of the mafia, and involved in organised crime.

Instagram picture of John Ibrahim and son Daniel.

In February 2022, Justice Anna Katzmann ruled in favour of News after finding the alleged imputations were not conveyed by the news reports.

“The portrait of Mr Taylor [in the report] is certainly unflattering,” Justice Katzmann told the court.

Daniel Taylor.

“It does not paint him in a favourable light. And it is understandable that he would be unhappy about it.

“But the impression of him it creates is not that of a mafia figure, mobster or criminal engaged in organised crime,” Justice Katzmann told the court.

“Rather, Mr Taylor comes across as Mr Hills described him, namely as a petulant young man with a sense of entitlement, who has a complicated and at times turbulent relationship with his father, a foul mouth, a fondness for wisecracks and a predilection for making jokes in poor taste.”

Taylor appealed the decision claiming Justice Katzmann incorrectly assessed how an ordinary reader would interpret the news reports.

But a three-judge panel rejected Taylor’s appeal and ruled that the original judge had made the correct interpretations.

The judges ordered Taylor to pay the legal costs of the appeal for both parties.

Taylor had also been ordered to pay the costs for both parties in the original trial.

Got a news tip? Email [e-mail]