Nine on the hook for likely more than $2.5m after being forced to pay costs in Aston defamation case

Joe Aston’s defamation case is likely to cost Nine more than $2.5m after Elaine Stead was awarded costs in the matter.

Journalist Joe Aston leaving Federal court with his lawyer in the defamation trial against Elaine Stead. Jane Dempster/The Australian.

Nine Entertainment is looking at a bill of more than $2.5 million after Elaine Stead was awarded the vast majority of her costs in her defamation case against Australian Financial Review columnist Joe Aston.

Justice Michael Lee, in a brief hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney on Monday, awarded Dr Stead “indemnity costs” in the matter, from the date of April 22 last year, when Dr Stead offered to settle for a $190,000 payout.

Nine Entertainment rejected that offer, and an offer of $140,000 plus an apology made a few days later.

A third offer to settle for $650,000, no order as to costs, an apology and the removal of the matters from the internet was also rejected by Fairfax just prior to the matter going to court in December last year.

Fairfax, the Nine-owned entity named in the complaint, had offered $200,000 inclusive of costs, and the publication of a clarification just prior to this, and followed up with a $250,000 offer.

Fairfax will be forced to pay Dr Stead $280,000 in ordinary and aggravated damages, $16,500 in interest, plus her costs from April 22. Her lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou, said last week that Dr Stead’s total costs ran to more than $1.1 million.

Nine’s costs have not been revealed. However Justice Michael Lee, the judge presiding in the matter, last week surmised they would be even more than Dr Stead’s costs.

He told the court last week his determination on costs would turn on whether rejecting the $190,000 offer was reasonable.

Dr Stead was awarded costs on a party and party basis prior to April 22, with this costs definition usually not covering the entirety of an applicant’s costs.

A lump sum costs order has not yet been made.

Elaine Stead, formerly a director with Blue Sky.

Dr Stead’s defamation case was based on two of Aston’s articles published in The Australian Financial Review and a tweet. Dr Stead argued had made her out to look “stupid” and a “cretin”.

The costs in the case were large in part because financial records from numerous companies which the now-failed listed investment firm Blue Sky had invested in were subpoenaed in the matter.

Dr Stead was an executive director at Blue Sky and involved in making investment decisions in companies such as Shoes of Prey and Vinomofo.

Ms Chrysanthou argued in court last week that Dr Stead should have all of her costs in the matter covered as each time an offer to settle was made, Fairfax responded with a “bugger off letter”.

She also said the AFR had put out a “highly misleading” press release following Justice Lee’s judgment against it, and had published an article almost every day since the trial ended, in a “petulant campaign of an unsuccessful party, riddled with errors’’.

Fairfax has removed Aston’s articles from the internet since losing the case but his tweet, which now does not link to any articles, remains.

Ms Chrysanthou told the court last week that Dr Stead deserved all of her costs to be met, due to the “overwhelming victory in her favour’’.

“Costs should follow the event,’’ Ms Chrysanthou said, adding that Fairfax had made no attempt to expedite the process.

“What we had, was, to put it colloquially, every time we tried to settle, a ‘bugger-off’ letter, three times,’’ she said.

Nine has been contacted for comment.