Channel 7 wins unprecedented suppression order over ‘salacious’ emails

Channel 7 has won a bid for an “unprecedented” media blackout over court documents, including potentially “salacious” emails.

Channel 7 has won a bid for an “unprecedented” media blackout over court documents, including potentially “salacious” communications after a former Spotlight journalist, Amelia Saw, sued the network.

Justice Nye Perram had previously noted that the case could involve “the washing of a large amount of dirty linen in public”.

On Friday he published a judgment confirming that Seven had won its bid for a suppression order over parts of a statement of claim, as well as an amended statement of claim, which have been filed with the court.

The Channel 7 legal moves follow the release of a bombshell report detailing claims of bullying and sexual harassment at rival network Channel 9.

Amelia Saw.

Ms Saw, a former Spotlight producer, is suing for general breach of protections over her time at the program in 2022. She has launched Federal Court proceedings against the network under The Fair Work Act, claiming she was subjected to a hostile working environment.

Her legal case follows revelations Seven paid Bruce Lehrmann’s rent for a year in exchange for an exclusive interview, and claims aired in the Federal Court that the program reimbursed Mr Lehrmann for money spent on drugs and prostitutes.

Seven has maintained the expenditure was without the knowledge or consent of senior executives.

The then-Spotlight executive producer, Mark Llewellyn, resigned in the wake of allegations first aired by news.com.au that a producer Taylor Auerbach had used his credit card to book thousands of dollars in Thai massages as he was trying to lock down an exclusive interview with Mr Lehrmann. Mr Lehrmann denied getting a massage.

Mark Llewellyn.

Bruce Lehrmann. Picture: NewsWire/John Gass

Barrister Kate Eastman, acting for Seven, had sought a suppression order over parts of the Amelia Saw documents, arguing it would put Seven “in a particularly difficult position in terms of preparing for a mediation”.

“It’s not our submission that we’re saying, ‘We are prejudiced.’ What we’re saying is that the interests, and the process of justice, is prejudiced by the release of this information at this stage,” Ms Eastman said.

“The pleading rules are there for a purpose, Your Honour. And they are not there to plead out what some might consider to be salacious communications.

“One-sided entirely in supporting the way in which [Saw] wishes her story to be told, but not a process of mediation where both sides of the story are available,” she said.

Justice Nye Perram.

Last week, Justice Nye Perram asked why Ms Saw wanted her statement of claim public and if there was a “strategic position” behind it.

Her barrister Philip Boncardo said there was no strategic position but his client’s view was that the suppression application was unnecessary.

“In fact, Your Honour will see from some of the allegations ... that those matters are matters that are not necessarily advantageous to my client,” Mr Boncardo said.

“My client is not taking a strategic position, she’s taking an entirely principled one.

“The substance of this application is that Channel 7, in effect, seeks to avoid embarrassment by the public airing of the allegations made by my client.”

Three media organisations, including Nine Entertainment and the ABC, opposed the suppression order.

A Seven spokesperson previously said Seven denied Ms Saw’s allegations.

“Seven Network strongly and categorically rejects the allegations by Amelia Saw,” a spokesperson said.

Bruce Lehrmann. Picture: John Gass/NewsWire

In his written judgment, Justice Nye said he was “satisfied that the disclosure of the pleadings at this stage would be prejudicial to the administration of justice because it may imperil the success of an upcoming mediation. I am satisfied that suppression and non-publication orders should be made.”

“Seven puts its case on the basis that the chances of settlement will be enhanced if Ms Saw’s allegations are not aired publicly before the mediation,’’ he said.

“Ms Saw submits that this is not so and that the prospects of settlement will not be materially affected by any such press coverage. Ms Saw’s submission is unrealistic.

“The continued maintenance of confidentiality is something which may be of value to Seven at any mediation and hence also to Ms Saw.

“To be crude about it, keeping the details of Ms Saw’s allegations out of the news is something Ms Saw can offer to Seven in their settlement negotiations.

“Once the allegations are public, on the other hand, that bargaining chip will be off the table. Thus, I accept that there is a risk – which I would rate as significant – that the publication of the pleadings will deleteriously affect the prospects of the mediation succeeding.”

Seven has not sought permanent suppression or non-publication orders but instead only orders which will last until seven days after the termination of a mediation the court has ordered or, alternatively, until after the filing of its defence.

That mediation is to take place between 1 November 2024 and 30 November 2024. A defence is due to be filed by 18 October 2024.

Originally published as Channel 7 wins unprecedented suppression order over ‘salacious’ emails