Adelaide City councillor Henry Davis sues political rivals Janet Giles and Phillip Martin for defamation over ‘misogyny’ claim

An Adelaide City councillor has told a court two rivals ganged up on him and falsely branded him a misogynist – but one of them says she will argue “a defence of truth”.

• Davis’ video parody of mayor

 

An Adelaide City councillor has told a court two of his political rivals “acted in concert” to defame him as a misogynist – but one says she will rely on “a defence of truth”.

On Tuesday, Cr Henry Davis told the Adelaide Magistrates Court he was open to settling his claim against Cr Phillip Martin out of court, provided he also received “monetary damages”.

He was not confident of resolving his dispute with Cr Janet Giles, saying he had yet to decide whether the jurisdiction’s $12,000 damages cap was sufficient for his claim.

“In considering the matter further, the issue is in light of case law I’ve looked at as to the quantum of damages awarded in similar cases,” he said.

“Given the nature of (the comments), and that it was in a capital city (council hearing), I did want to figure out if it could be a lot more, if the claim could be expanded.

Councillor Henry Davis.

“At the moment, my intention is to continue on this path – but I also want to think more carefully about it.”

Magistrate Michael Barnett, however, told Cr Davis: “Now is the time to think more carefully about it.”

Cr Davis replied “I suppose I wanted to …” but Mr Barnett interrupted, asking: “Keep that as a threat?”

At a council meeting in July, Cr Giles was critical of Cr Davis’ social media use and claimed it was intimidating and undermining to women.

Cr Martin spoke in support of Cr Giles’ “frankness and courage”, while Cr Davis denied her claims and insisted he was critical of “ripping off taxpayers”.

Councillor Janet Giles.

A week later, he issued a defamation concerns notice to the pair and, in a September council meeting, Mr Martin apologised for and retracted his comments.

In court on Tuesday, Cr Davis said the exchange had led to media attention and resultant damage to his reputation.

“There were two stones thrown, which of them did the most damage when they hit? If there had been just one stone thrown, it would not have been so bad,” he said.

“My allegation is that they were acting in concert together and it was arranged beforehand, that they were supporting each other in the attack.

“They have a close friendship, they are both consistently together in council, they both consistently vote against me on most matters.

“The speed with which Cr Martin rose to defend the original statement made by Cr Giles, and their consistently being together, make it appear to me to be a co-ordinated attack.”

Councillor Phillip Martin.

Cr Martin said he would welcome court-guided mediation of the matter and was “happy to have discussions” about a financial settlement.

“Importantly, Cr Davis sought an apology and retraction from both Cr Giles and myself – that apology and retraction was given by me, in good faith, and accepted,” he said.

Cr Giles said the incidents complained of by Cr Davis “were completely separated” and “do not connect in any way”.

“There appears to be a sense in emails (sent to us) that Cr Davis that his claim against Cr Martin might need to continue even if he’s apologised, because I haven’t,” she said.

“I don’t see the logic in that, and I don’t believe they’re connected.”

Asked, by Mr Barnett, if she would be arguing “a defence of truth” in response to Cr Davis’ claim, Cr Giles replied: “Yes.”

Mr Barnett listed the matter for trial in March, ordering the parties attend upon a court-appointed mediator beforehand.

The content summaries were created with the assistance of AI technology, then edited and approved for publication by an editor.