Warren Tredrea has lost his case against the Nine Network claiming he was unfairly dismissed

The former Nine News presenter now faces the prospect of large legal bills after a judge ruled his ex-employer had the right to sack him.

Media personality and former footballer Warren Tredrea has lost his high-profile $5.7 million dispute with the Nine Network that was fuelled by both the Covid pandemic and assertions of poor workplace performance.

In a judgment on Thursday, the Federal Court ruled against Tredrea’s claim he had been unfairly dismissed from his role as Nine’s SA sports newsreader due to its internal vaccination mandate.

Nine had counter-asserted that Tredrea was dismissed not because of his stance on the vaccine but because of performance in the job when compared with his high salary.

In his judgment, Justice Geoffrey Kennett rejected the network’s claim that Tredrea’s public opposition to vaccination mandates amounted to “serious misconduct”.

Warren Tredrea, his wife and legal team following the decision. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

“For Mr Tredrea to express his view about (vaccines) and the merits of requiring people to be vaccinated in order to attend work or other places was not ‘serious misconduct’,” he said.

“This is the case even if those opinions were not particularly well-informed and some of Mr Tredrea’s arguments were not soundly based.

“The views that he expressed were seemingly genuinely held … his expression of them was not shocking or obscene and did not advocate violence.”

However, he said that did not mean Nine’s decision to terminate him was unreasonable.

“In the aftermath of (those) comments, Mr Tredrea was being described – and to

some extent ridiculed – as an ‘anti-vaxxer’,” he said.

“Some viewers thought that his position was reprehensible and thought less of Channel 9 for employing him.

“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.

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

Tredrea said he was “obviously disappointed” by the loss. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

It assessed his prospects of signing a new contract with Nine, following the network informing him of those concerns, at “30 per cent” – and ordered he pay all of his former employer’s court and legal costs.

In a press conference at his lawyer’s chambers, Tredrea said he was “obviously disappointed” by the court’s decision, and would consider filing an appeal.

“We didn’t get the rub of the green today … I want to thank all of the people who have supported me,” he said.

“It’s been a challenging year, a challenging period … we need a chance to decipher the judgment and work out what it all means.

“We are disappointed … this was a significant (financial) outlay to take it this far but we are very adamant in our belief that we’ve taken the right course.”

His counsel said they would seek to argue Tredrea should not have to pay any of Nine’s costs but declined to give their reasoning as to why.

Tredrea had asked the court to award him $5,775,000, claiming he was wrongfully dismissed due to Nine’s “unreasonable” Covid policy.

He denied he performed poorly in the job, claiming he “broke more stories” than his colleagues – who, Tredrea claimed, won awards “off the back of me”.

In response, Nine news director Jeremy Pudney told the court Tredrea’s “factually inaccurate” comments about the Covid-19 vaccine left his reputation “permanently bruised”.

He said he considered Tredrea – who was paid more than $216,000 a year for less than four hours’ work a day – was being “compensated too highly”.

The court also heard evidence regarding vaccines from competing expert witnesses – Professor Nikolai Petrovsky for Tredrea, and Associate Professor Paul Griffin for Nine.

The court retired in August last year to consider its decision – since then, Tredrea has been elected to the Port Adelaide Football Club board with 50.9 per cent of the vote.

In his 74-page judgment, Justice Geoffrey Kennett dubbed Tredrea “a former AFL player who has achieved a measure of fame, particularly in SA”.

Justice Kennett said the entire case turned on whether Nine was entitled, under law, to terminate Tredrea’s services contract after he “disobeyed” its “lawful directions” about vaccination requirements.

All of those directions were reasonable under Australian law, he ruled, particularly given government rules about the pandemic at the time.

That, he said, meant the competing expert evidence “was ultimately of very limited utility” in determining the dispute.

However, he said he “preferred” the evidence of Associate Professor Griffin over Professor Petrovsky.

He said Professor Petrovsky’s development of a rival vaccine rendered him “not sufficiently disinterested to be relied on as an expert witness in this area”.

Tredrea said he and his legal team would consider an appeal. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

Justice Kennett said Mr Pudney was a “careful and candid witness”, and that Nine’s concerns about bad publicity arising from Tredrea’s stance had “a reasonable basis”.

“It was at least awkward for one of its news presenters to have disappeared from his post in circumstances that appeared to have a direct connection with controversial comments that he had made and with responses to one of the most pressing issues facing the Australian community at the time,” he said.

“So far as Mr Tredrea’s own public image and reputation were concerned, it was clear that he had made himself a controversial figure whose opinions and conduct were likely to attract strong condemnation from many if not most of Channel 9’s existing and potential viewers.”

He said the evidence “does not show that the decision to terminate” Tredrea “was anything other than a reasonable one” and a “bona fide attempt to protect” Nine’s “legitimate interests”.

“There was no breach or repudiation of the Services Agreement by Channel 9 and no entitlement to relief arises,” he said.

Justice Kennett further ruled Nine’s decision to terminate was neither “harsh nor unfair” under workplace laws given Tredrea’s “disobedience” of its directions.

Submissions on costs will be heard on a date to be set.