Peter van Onselen cross-examined as Network Ten sues him over criticism of network in article
Peter van Onselen faced questions in court today where a joke about Ten’s CEO “f***ng a goat” became the centre of attention.
Channel 10’s former political editor Peter van Onselen has been accused of “giving dishonest evidence” over his split with the network in March, including making up a rude joke to a HR boss in order to “walk away from his obligations”.
Dr van Onselen faces a wide-ranging “lifetime ban” on criticising the network that would affect his legitimacy as a journalist or academic and even stop him from criticising TV shows to his wife and mates, his legal team has argued in court.
Earlier this month, Ten launched legal action against Dr van Onselen over allegations he breached a non-disparagement clause in his redundancy contract, which included a $71,000 payout.
Dr van Onselen, a former host of The Project, announced in March he was leaving Ten after four years in the role to return to academia.
The legal war relates to Dr van Onselen’s recent opinion piece published in The Australian in which he questioned the viability of Ten and its US owners Paramount and blamed ratings problems on “brand and management”. He called Ten the “minnow of Australian commercial television”.
“Paramount’s share price has plummeted more than 30 per cent in the past month, down more than 50 per cent in just a year,” Dr van Onselen wrote in the piece.
“You could choose to be a little more upbeat about Paramount (and Ten’s) future if the streaming part of the business was firing, but it’s not”.
The academic and broadcaster is holidaying in Italy with his family and did not face the NSW Supreme Court hearing today in person, but appeared via Zoom.
During cross-examination by Network Ten’s lawyer Arthur Moses, Dr van Onselen admitted he did not read the final version of the deed of release.
Mr Moses asked: “Are you saying you are in effect the master of your own misfortune?”
Dr van Onselen responded: “If the deed is different to the way I interpreted it in relation to the non-disparagement clause, then yes ... I was putting myself in the hands of my lawyer”.
Dr van Onselen’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC cross examined Paramount’s Human Resources Vice-President, Anthony McDonald, about an alleged phone call with Dr Van Onselen.
She suggested her client raised concern about the wide-reaching non-disparagement clause which would gag him from criticising the company, and said: “I assume the deed doesn’t shut down my right to comment forever about the network … but if the CEO f***ed a goat and everyone was piling on Ten for not sacking them, surely I can pile on too”.
Mr McDonald allegedly laughed and said: “Of course mate, that sounds fair’.”
But Mr McDonald strenuously denied that conversation, telling the court he would remember “such extreme language”.
He told the court that while he sent the deed of release to Dr van Onselen, he did not know the details of it because he is not a lawyer.
Mr Moses accused Dr van Onselen of “making up” the conversation about the goat.
“He (Dr van Onselen) has come to court to give dishonest evidence in terms of what happened with Mr McDonald, which was plainly false, in an attempt to walk away from his obligations,” Mr Moses said.
But a defiant Dr van Onselen said it definitely occurred – and that it gave him assurance about still being able to do his job after leaving Ten.
In her opening remarks, Ms Chrysanthou told the court the non-disparagement clause was “a lifetime order being sought against the person whose profession it is to talk”.
“He would have to ensure he only speaks in glowing terms of Network Ten ... and (this) would affect his legitimacy and professionalism as a commentator and academic”.
She said it also exposed her client to contempt of court if “he is dissatisfied with his Paramount+ streaming service and writes an email complaining about the quality.
“It would also put him in breach if he complains to his wife about something Network 10 says in the news ... It puts him in breach if he says in the pub at lunch with his friends, ‘I’m surprised Network 10 purchased that program, it’s not a very good program’,”.
In response, Justice David Hammerschlag said: “The question that may arise would be, ‘why did he sign it?”.
Dr van Onselen told the court he understood the clause in question meant he could not disparage Ten, but only in regards to his “employment and the proceedings”.
Mr Moses asked if he was “worried” about Network Ten making disparaging comments about him in relation to “the (Ten political reporter) Tegan George proceedings” to which he agreed.
Ms George has initiated a bullying claim against the network in the Federal Court. In a statement of claim submitted to the court, she alleges it did not stop Dr van Onselen from bullying and tormenting her.
Ten and Dr van Onselen have strenuously refuted the bullying allegations.
In an earlier undertaking to the court, Dr van Onselen agreed to temporarily refrain from “disparaging” his former employer Network Ten until the court case is resolved.
The proceedings were part-heard and will return to court for judgment at a later date.