Amber case: ‘mud at boys club’

A judge has scolded QC Julian Burnside who is representing Amber Harrison in her battle with Seven.

Seven’s barrister Andrew Bell SC (right) at the court today. (Picture Renee Nowytarger/The Australian)

High-profile human rights lawyer Julian Burnside QC has been scolded by a Supreme Court judge for “throwing mud” when he described Seven West Media as one of country’s biggest boys clubs.

Mr Burnside is acting for former Seven West Media executive assistant Amber Harrison in her ongoing bitter legal battle with the Seven.

The case revolves around whether she should be subject to a permanent gag order for breaching a confidentiality deal that was signed to cover up her two-year alleged sex and drug scandal with Seven boss Tim Worner.

“It is in the interest of justice that Ms Harrison be able to litigate in the court she has chosen in the jurisdiction of the state where she lives, especially in circumstances where she is taking on one of the country’s biggest boys clubs,” Mr Burnside said in front of a packed Supreme Court in Sydney today.

Mr Burnside’s branding of the Kerry Stokes chaired company as a boys club prompted an immediate interjection from Seven’s barrister, Andrew Bell, SC who labelled the claim as “outrageous”.

Mr Burnside tried quickly to correct himself, saying “taking on a very big litigant”, but the damage was done as Supreme Justice John Sackar accused the prominent silk of “throwing mud”.

“That was entirely inappropriate,” Justice Sackar said.

“It was gratuitous, it was uncalled for. I’m not even going to tolerate that kind of comment in this court.”

“Your client made a choice to file a cross claim in this jurisdiction in these very proceedings. You should start from a more accurate basis before throwing mud in my court Mr Burnside.”

Seven’s legal team argued on Thursday that Ms Harrison should not be allowed to sue the company because she signed an “extremely broad” release promising not to take legal action.

Mr Burnside however argued that jurisdiction for her cross claim — which relates to Seven having failed to provide a safe place of employment for Ms Harrison — should be transferred to the Federal Court in Melbourne where employment matters are heard.

Ms Harrison wants the entire dispute, including Seven’s application for a permanent gag order, transferred to the Federal Court in Melbourne and heard alongside her Fair Work claim.

“The weight of the dispute in this case arises on Ms Harrison’s claims …. And those claims cannot be debated in this court because the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction,” Mr Burnside said.

But Mr Bell said that transferring the proceedings was a classic case of “the tail wagging the dog.”

He said that as the Supreme Court proceedings had started first then it should proceed as is. He also told the court that any overlap between the Supreme and Federal Court cases was “entirely manufactured” by Ms Harrison’s legal team to force a transfer of the case.

Mr Bell said the moving the matter to Victoria would be problematic because the majority of witnesses for the case were based in Sydney

But Mr Burnside said Seven was a “national broadcaster” and that it would be odd for the company to take a “parochial view” that the dispute had to be heard in a Sydney court.

Justice Sackar said he would make a decision on the transfer by next week.