Federal Court makes no costs order in Warren Tredrea’s Covid-19 clash with Nine Network, each side to pay its own legal bills

A judge has ruled on how much Power great Warren Tredrea should stump up for his failed lawsuit against Channel 9, in the process detailing out-of-court negotiations between the parties.

Former Port Adelaide footballer Warren Tredrea has avoided a multi million-dollar legal bill for his failed Covid-19 challenge, with a judge sparing him from having to pay Channel 9’s court costs.

On Friday, Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett handed down his final ruling on the long, bitter stoush between Tredrea and the network for whom he once presented sports news.

He also gave a glimpse into the out-of-court negotiations between the parties, revealing Tredrea went from demanding $3.8 million in June 2022 to offering to settle for $176,000 just before the trial.

Accepting one of Nine’s many offers would, he noted, “have been advantageous in hindsight”.

“(Previously) I delivered a substantive judgment (on the matter) and made a provisional costs order in favour of Nine,” he said.

“But that order was subject to provisions or different orders being sought as to costs.

“I’ve received submissions from the parties and have determined this issue on the papers.

“The order of the court is that there is to be no order as to the costs of the proceedings.”

Justice Kennett’s decision means Tredrea will only have to pay for his own legal bills, and Nine will foot the cost of their successful defence of his claim.

The Advertiser understands that several members of Tredrea’s legal team acted pro bono.

On Friday his barrister, Simon Ower KC, said he had appeared in the case “on an ordinary commercial basis”.

Tredrea had sought $5,775,000, claiming he was wrongfully dismissed due to Nine’s “unreasonable” Covid policy.

Nine countered that Tredrea’s “factually inaccurate” comments about the Covid-19 vaccine has left his reputation “permanently bruised”, claiming he was being “compensated too highly”.

Former footballer Warren Tredrea following his loss in court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

Tredrea, however, insisted he “broke more stories” than his colleagues who, he further claimed, won awards “off the back of me”.

In March, Justice Kennett dismissed Tredrea’s claim, saying his dismissal was “not unreasonable” given his “opinions were not particularly well-informed” nor “soundly based”.

“Rather than having the studied neutrality of a newsreader, (Tredrea) was associated in public discourse with an unpopular viewpoint on an issue apt to excite strong emotions,” he said.

“It did not help that the viewpoint with which he was associated was diametrically opposed to the public position of Channel 9 itself.”

However, he also rejected Nine’s claim that Tredrea’s public opposition to vaccination mandates amounted to “serious misconduct”.

He found Tredrea had a no better than 30 per cent chance of securing a new contract with Nine, and found him liable to pay the network’s legal costs.

By his order on Friday, however, Justice Kennett absolved Tredrea of the requirement to pay anything to Nine, and each side will bear its own costs.

In his written judgment, Justice Kennett said Tredrea’s working agreement with Nine was terminated in January 2022, and his first pre-action letter was sent 15 days later.

In that letter, he said, Tredrea asked for payment of the balance of his agreement plus “a significant but unquantified” amount “in relation to damage to his reputation”.

Two months later, he said, Tredrea sent another letter quantifying his damages at $3.6 million and asking for a total payment of $3.8 million.

He said Tredrea also told Nine he “would accept $2 million” upon “acknowledgment of reputational loss”.

Nine rejected that settlement offer, he said, countering with $16,041 which amounted to “one month’s payment” under Tredrea’s contract.

Former Channel 9 sports presenter Port Power footballer Warren Tredrea. Picture: Supplied

Justice Kennett said Nine made four further offers in the months that followed, each of which Tredrea rejected before offering to settle for $450,000 in July 2022.

Nine declined and made a $50,000 counteroffer.

Prior to trial, he said, Tredrea offered to settle for $176,458.33 but Nine instead offered $120,000, which was declined.

Justice Kennett said Tredrea had not been “vexatious” in his pre-trial conduct, nor had he instituted his case “without reasonable cause”.

“I do not consider that the pursuit of the claim through to judgment was made unreasonable by Tredrea having rejected four offers of settlement which, with hindsight, would have been advantageous,” he said.

Last month, Tredrea formally lodged appeal documents with the court, seeking to challenge Justice Kennett’s dismissal of his claim on 16 separate grounds.

“This is about a process and what we feel was not the right decision made by the judge … I’m a person that stands by my beliefs and my principles,” he said at the time.

A date for that appeal has yet to be set.