Joe Aston, AFR saddled with hefty legal bill over ‘feminist cretin’ defamation case

After losing a defamation case, the Australian Financial Review and its star columnist have been ordered to cough up more than a million in court costs.

Columnist Joe Aston and the Australian Financial Review are facing a hefty legal bill . Picture: Jane Dempster/The Australian.

Columnist Joe Aston and the Australian Financial Review are facing a hefty legal bill after losing a defamation case brought by a venture capitalist who said the newspaper painted her as a “cretin”.

The media company was last month ordered to pay $280,000 damages to former Blue Sky Alternative Investments director Dr Elaine Stead over two of Mr Aston’s columns in 2019.

On Monday the financial pain escalated when Justice Michael Lee also ordered them to pay the bulk of Dr Stead’s costs on an indemnity basis, which covers more of a person’s legal costs than usual.

Dr Stead’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, has estimated her costs at $1.1 million.

The media company was also ordered to pay $16,500 interest.

Former Blue Sky Alternative Investments director Dr Elaine Stead was awarded $280,000 in damages over two of Joe Aston’s (pictured) columns in 2019. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Christian Gilles

Justice Lee found Mr Aston and the AFR had unreasonably refused an offer to settle from Dr Stead in April 2020.

She had offered to drop the case for $190,000, costs, and the articles being taken down, Justice Lee wrote.

But Aston and the AFR rejected the offer, as well as subsequent offers to settle for $140,000 and $650,000.

In turn, Dr Stead refused offers from the media company for confidential settlements to the tune of $200,000 and $250,000, plus a “clarification”.

Justice Lee ruled on Monday that the refusal of the April 2020 offer was unreasonable and that Dr Stead was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis from that date onwards, and on a regular basis for the prior period.

Mr Aston and the AFR had argued they should pay only 75 per cent of her costs overall, calculated on the regular basis.

Justice Lee said he understood why the media company found the prospect of paying up to settle the case “galling”, and that Mr Aston had “genuine and cogent grounds” for being concerned about what happened at Blue Sky.

“ Dr Stead’s behaviour did, as I have explained, demonstrate an apparent unwillingness to face up to the true reasons as to why Blue Sky failed,” Justice Lee wrote.

But, the judge wrote: “The problem always came back to the colourful, but less than adroit way the articles were originally put together”.

He said the fundamental problem was not Mr Aston’s critical opinions but rather whether those opinions were based on facts.

He said the columnist and AFR’s conduct was akin to the optimism displayed by Charles Dicken’s character Wilkins Micawber.

“Fairfax and Mr Aston proceeded Micawber-like, in the hope something might turn up to prove truth or allow substantial truth to be proved, notwithstanding the deficiencies in setting out some of the facts relied upon,” he wrote.