Millionaire mining magnate sues over anonymous tweets

A Melbourne mining magnate is suing the operator of an anonymous social media account over a series of allegedly defamatory posts.

The owner of an anonymous stock market gossip social media account has denied a mining entrepreneur suffered reputational damage after he fired off a series of tweets alleging dodgy business dealings.

Multi-millionaire Melbourne businessman Tolga Kumova has commenced defamation proceedings in the Federal Court against a New Zealand man, Alan Francis Davison, over his operation of the Twitter account @stockswami.

Mr Kumova, who is reported to be worth $95 million and an AFR Young Rich Lister, has claimed his reputation was tarnished by a series of tweets from Mr Davison’s account, which is followed by 6600 people including many respected business figures and journalists.

According to Mr Kumova’s claims, the tweets alleged he was involved in insider trading, pump-and-dump schemes and misleading the share market.

“Inside trading alive and thriving on the $ASX Pirate ship. $EUC, err cough cough. A Tolga Kumova special,, goes into Trading halt to explain a 33% spike in SP, and … Oh, … err. a material acquisition that they forgot to tell the market about,” @stockswami tweeted in September 2019.

I have in the last few days received a statement of claims that I made imputations that Tolga Kumova has engaged in inside trading.
Let me be clear.
That was not and has ever been my intention, inference or thought.

I apologise to Tolga for any hurt caused.

— Stock Swami (@stockswami) September 20, 2020

The 1 good thing about being sued is that you become so broke,
you don't get worried about being sued a second time.🚀🚀🚀

— Stock Swami (@stockswami) July 7, 2021

Mr Kumova has claimed he suffered hatred, ridicule and contempt and that the mining executive’s professional reputation had been gravely injured by the posts.

The two parties were sent off to mediation, however were back in the Federal Court on Tuesday after failing to reach a settlement.

Mr Davison’s lawyers issued two interrogatories in which they sought answers from Mr Kumova on what they said were two key questions prior to the trial.

The court heard that the questions related to investments he made on behalf of his parents with Opes Prime, an Australian securities lending and stockbroking firm which collapsed in 2008.

Prominent defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou, acting for Mr Kumova, said the interrogatories were not relevant and asked that they be set aside.

Tolga Kumova, seen here in 2017 with his limited edition Ferrari in St Kilda, is suing over a series of allegedly defamatory tweets. Picture: David Geraghty / The Australian

Barrister James Wheeldon, acting for Mr Davison, said they pertained to evidence in Mr Kumova’s affidavit which were contradicted by previous public statements to the media.

“Mr Kumova claims that he has been gravely injured in his reputation, which is something we deny,” Mr Wheeldon said.

“These questions go directly to Mr Kumova’s reputation, it’s not just a matter of credit.”

However, Justice Geoffrey Flick denied the application, saying he was not convinced Mr Davison’s case will be prejudiced if he does not have advance notice of the answer to the questions before the matter goes to trial.

Mr Kumova had another small victory in court on Tuesday when his lawyers were given access to a slew of documents which revealed communication between Mr Davison and his informant.

Multimillionaire Melbourne businessman Tolga Kumova is suing the operator of an anonymous Twitter account for defamation. Picture: Instagram via NCA NewsWire

The Federal Court had previously denied Mr Davison’s bid to protect the sources of his information about Mr Kumova after he had claimed he was a “citizen journalist”.

Lawyers for Mr Kumova subsequently subpoenaed investor Stephen Dobson seeking to discover a host of communications between him and Mr Davison.

Mr Davison attempted to claim legal professional privilege over the documents and block access, claiming some of the communications were attempts to source information for his lawyers ahead of a trial.

And while Justice Flick did agree the matters discussed were relevant to the trial, he said they fell short of satisfying the test that they were privileged.

“They’re talking and communicating about matters relevant to the proceedings, the whole purpose of these tweets, or whatever they are, is directed to how the litigation is going and what can be done,” Justice Flick said.

“Where you fall short is that it does not provide the factual inference that this communication enables the solicitor to prosecute or defend the action.

“He’s saying, ‘Mate, where can I find some further evidence or a particular character?’”