Adelaide city councillor Henry Davis to seek $12,000 in damages from Cr Janet Giles, settles with Cr Phil Martin

An Adelaide city councillor has settled a defamation case against a political rival, but says he will seek damages against another.

An Adelaide city councillor has settled a defamation claim outside of court against one of two political rivals, but says he could “bankrupt” the other.

Cr Henry Davis launched legal action against Cr Phillip Martin and Cr Janet Giles last year, alleging they “acted in concert” to defame him as a misogynist.

Cr Martin had apologised and retracted his comments made during a public council meeting, and on Wednesday resolved the matter during court-ordered mediation with Cr Davis.

Cr Davis told The Advertiser he would continue to pursue Cr Giles in the Adelaide Magistrates Court for the jurisdiction’s maximum damages cap of $12,000.

Councillor Henry Davis. Picture: Supplied

Councillor Janet Giles. Picture: Facebook

“My view is that I’m open to a lot more given the damage and other court cases which have been decided,” he said.

“However, given that we have to work together for the next two years and the amount that I could claim could bankrupt Cr Giles and it’s not something I want to do, so I’ll limit the claim to $12,000.

“I think it’s a clear signal to all councillors that we don’t have parliamentary privilege and we need to be careful about how we debate. We need to play the ball, not the man.”

Cr Davis said the matter with Cr Martin “has been settled”.

“The parties have agreed there will be no further comment on the matter publicly or in private,” he said.

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

Cr Martin spoke in support of Cr Giles and thanked her for her “frankness and courage” and questioned why women in the chamber were “constantly under attack”.

In a previous court appearance, Cr Davis said the exchange had led to media attention and resultant damage to his reputation.

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

When Cr Giles was previously asked by Magistrate Michael Barnett if she would be arguing “a defence of truth” in response to Cr Davis’ claim, she replied: “Yes.”

Cr Giles told The Advertiser: “It’s disappointing that Cr Davis has commented as we were specifically asked by the mediator to keep matters confidential.

“It appears Cr Davis continues to have little regard for proper process and behaviour.”

The matter is listed for trial later this month.