Seven’s major move in lawsuit with ex-Spotlight producer

Seven has settled its lawsuit with a producer who sued over her time at the embattled Spotlight program.

Seven has settled its Fair Work dispute with an ex-Spotlight producer after a judge agreed to place a five-year suppression order over court documents, avoiding a potential “blizzard of bad press”.

Amelia Saw last year launched Federal Court proceedings against Seven under the Fair Work Act, claiming she was subjected to a hostile working environment during her time at Spotlight in 2022.

Last year, Seven was granted an interim suppression order over pleadings and other key documents in the case before the matter was sent to mediation.

Justice Nye Perram told the court in October that the case could involve “the washing of a large amount of dirty linen in public”.

When applying for the suppression orders, Seven’s barrister Kate Eastman argued the interests of justice would be “prejudiced” if the documents were released before mediation because it would provide a disincentive to come to a settlement.

Amelia Saw settled her lawsuit with Seven. Picture: Supplied

In a judgment made in the Federal Court on Thursday, Justice Perram said: “This case has now settled as a result of a successful mediation held before a registrar of this court.”

Justice Perram said the settlement was contingent on the court making suppression orders over documents filed with the court, including a statement of claim and several affidavits.

She ordered a five-year suppression order over the documents, saying that parties would not have a motivation to settle if damaging allegations contained in legal documents were aired publicly before mediation.

“If suppression and non-publication orders are not made, it would mean that in future cases of this kind, a settlement could not be achieved because the respondent would have no incentive to settle where it was going to be exposed to a blizzard of bad press even if it did,” Justice Perram said.

“In that circumstance, I accept that the orders proposed are necessary in the requisite sense.”