Guess when you're managed by criminals, what to expect
In a Melbourne courtroom, a defamation case quietly asks an ancient question: where does truth end and harm begin? Sarah Awad, daughter of the late underworld figure Mick Gatto and sole director of a body corporate management company, is suing apartment owner Jonathon Lunt over an email that called her business 'managed by criminals' — words she was never meant to read, yet cannot now unread. The case turns not on malice but on the collision between a woman's professional identity and the documented criminal history of her husband, who co-managed the business and is currently serving fifteen years for cocaine trafficking. What the court must weigh is whether language rooted in verifiable fact can still constitute a wound deserving remedy.
- A single carelessly CC'd email has drawn Sarah Awad into a public legal battle she never anticipated, exposing her professional reputation to scrutiny she had no opportunity to pre-empt.
- Lunt's complaint about a $250-per-pin garage door repair spiralled into an allegation of criminal management — words that, once sent, could not be recalled from Awad's inbox.
- Awad's defamation claim rests on the argument that she, as sole director, was personally implicated in wrongdoing she denies, suffering real damage to her standing and feelings.
- Lunt's defence strikes back with a judicial finding: a County Court judge himself noted that convicted cocaine trafficker Danny Awad was a manager and operator of the very business in question.
- The case now balances on a legal knife's edge — whether 'managed by criminals' is defamatory falsehood or fair comment anchored in a $10 million drug conviction already on the public record.
Sarah Awad, daughter of the late underworld figure Mick Gatto, has taken apartment owner Jonathon Lunt to Victoria's County Court over an email he sent to fellow residents of a Preston apartment block — an email she received only because she was accidentally copied in. Lunt had been complaining about the cost of repairing a tampered garage door, but his frustration widened into something sharper: "Guess when you're managed by criminals, what to expect by their preferred contractors." Those words, unintended for her eyes, became the foundation of a defamation claim.
Awad is the sole director of Maybach Investments, which operates State Owners Corp, the body corporate manager for the building. She argues the email implied she was dishonestly profiting from inflated contractor fees, causing serious harm to her professional reputation and personal feelings.
Lunt's defence, however, points directly at her husband. Danny Awad, who also played a role in running the business, is currently serving a fifteen-year prison sentence — with a ten-year non-parole period — for his part in a cocaine trafficking operation that brought roughly $10 million worth of the drug into Australia hidden inside Xerox printers shipped from Mexico. At sentencing, the presiding judge specifically noted Danny Awad's role as a manager and operator of State Owners Corp alongside his wife. Lunt's legal team argues this judicial finding gives the phrase "managed by criminals" a factual foundation, not a defamatory one.
The court must now decide whether Lunt's email crossed the line into unlawful reputational damage, or whether it amounted to fair comment on a matter grounded in documented, publicly adjudicated fact. The distinction — between targeting a person's character and accurately describing the criminal history of someone integral to their business — is the narrow corridor through which this case must pass.
Sarah Awad, daughter of the late underworld figure Mick Gatto, has filed a defamation suit in Victoria's County Court against an apartment owner over an email he sent to fellow residents—one that accidentally included her on the distribution line. The email, written by Jonathon Lunt, criticized the contractor hired by the body corporate to repair a garage door at the Gilbert apartment block in Preston. What began as a complaint about inflated repair costs—$250 per pin to fix a tampered door—escalated into a broader accusation. "Guess when you're managed by criminals, what to expect by their preferred contractors," Lunt wrote, the words landing in Awad's inbox despite not being an intended recipient.
Awad is the sole director of Maybach Investments, which owns and operates State Owners Corp, the entity that manages the body corporates for the building. She claims the email damaged her reputation, suggesting she was dishonestly profiting from contractors charging exorbitant fees. In her statement of claim, she says she suffered serious injury to her feelings and that her credit and professional standing were harmed by the implication.
Lunt's defence, however, shifts the focus away from Awad herself. His legal team argues that her husband, Danny Awad, is also involved in running the business and that he carries a criminal record that makes the "managed by criminals" characterization factually grounded. Danny Awad is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence with a 10-year non-parole period for cocaine trafficking. In 2019, he and co-accused John Tambakakis were convicted over approximately $10 million worth of cocaine that arrived in Australia hidden inside five Xerox printers shipped from Mexico in 2017. The pair had been planning to distribute the drugs.
When sentencing Danny Awad, County Court judge Mark Dean noted that he had been a manager and operator of State Owners Corp alongside his wife. Lunt's defence documents reference this judicial finding, arguing that concerns about Awad's role and conduct had previously been raised with the Owners Corporation Committee. The defence essentially contends that calling a business managed by a convicted cocaine trafficker "managed by criminals" is not defamation but rather a statement grounded in documented fact.
The case now hinges on a narrow legal question: whether Lunt's email constitutes defamation—a false statement that damages reputation—or whether it qualifies as fair comment on a matter of public interest, protected by law. Awad is seeking damages for the harm she claims the email caused. The outcome will turn on how the court weighs the distinction between attacking a person's character and commenting on the verifiable criminal history of someone involved in the business she operates.
Notable Quotes
Guess when you're managed by criminals, what to expect by their preferred contractors— Jonathon Lunt, in the email that prompted the lawsuit
The role and conduct of Mr Awad is and was of concern to the Owners Corporation Committee and had been previously raised— Lunt's defence documents
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
So she's suing over an email she wasn't even supposed to receive?
Exactly. It was a CC'd mistake. But the words landed anyway, and she says they destroyed her reputation in the building and beyond.
What did the email actually say that was so damaging?
He called the business "managed by criminals." He was angry about a contractor charging $250 to put a pin back in a garage door. But the accusation went much wider than that one repair.
And is there any truth to it? Is the business actually managed by criminals?
That's the whole fight. Her husband Danny Awad—he's in prison for cocaine trafficking. Fifteen years. So the defendant's argument is: I wasn't lying, I was just stating a fact.
How much cocaine are we talking about?
About $10 million worth. It came hidden in Xerox printers from Mexico in 2017. He and his co-accused were planning to traffic it.
And the judge said he was managing the body corporate business at the time?
Yes. The sentencing judge specifically noted that Awad had been a manager and operator of the company. So the defendant is saying: the court already established this, I'm not making it up.
What's Awad claiming happened to her because of the email?
She says her reputation was damaged, her credit was affected, and she suffered serious emotional injury. She's seeking damages.
So it comes down to whether calling something true is defamation?
Essentially. If it's true, or if it's fair comment on a matter of public interest, she loses. If it's a false statement made maliciously, she wins.