Peter van Onselen breached his redundancy contract with Network Ten, court rules

Network Ten has been vindicated in its heated high-profile lawsuit against former political editor Peter van Onselen.

Network Ten has been vindicated in its heated high-profile lawsuit against former political editor Peter van Onselen.

The broadcaster took its former star to the Supreme Court over allegations he breached his contract by penning a scathing opinion piece in The Australian on May 29.

Dr van Onselen had signed a non-disparagement clause which covered his former employer and its owner Paramount when he left his role at Network Ten in March this year.

Yet only months later, he slammed the broadcaster as “the minnow of Australian commercial television” and opined it was “out gunned and out rated” by its competitors.

Peter van Onselen was sued by his former employer after breaching his contract. Picture: 10 News

On Friday, Justice David Hammerschlag confirmed the article was a breach of the non-disparagement clause in his redundancy contract.

“The article as a whole is, undoubtedly, disparaging … (and) it is plain that it was intended to be so,” he said.

The Supreme Court Judge ruled Dr van Onselen had been “pejorative” in the article which cast doubt on the financial viability of the network and its parent company.

“This type of disparagement can self-evidently undermine the confidence of investors or potential investors in Ten,” he said.

“That is not a trivial or insignificant matter.”

The academic agreed not to disparage the company when he signed the redundancy contract and received a payout of more than $165,000.

However, the political pundit previously told the court he hadn’t read the non-disparagement clause, which specified a lifelong gag order on criticising the network.

The political pundit previously told the Supreme Court he hadn’t read the clause, which specified a lifelong gag order on criticising the network.

The author and academic hosted The Project numerous times alongside Lisa Wilkinson.

In his testimony before the court, Dr van Onselen recalled asking Paramount’s vice-president of human resources Anthony McDonald whether the clause was legitimate.

“I assume the deed doesn’t shut down my right to talk about the network forever,” he allegedly said in the phone conversation.

“If the CEO f**ked a goat and everyone was piling on, I would be able to?”

The court was told Mr McDonald allegedly reassured the commentator: “Of course mate, that sounds fair.”

Justice Hammerschlag sided with Mr McDonald, finding that Dr van Onselen was “not a convincing witness”.

He noted the author had not contacted his lawyer afterwards or taken steps to ensure the clause was amended to reflect the reassurances.

In filing the lawsuit, Network Ten had sought a permanent injunction to bar the former co-host of The Project from deriding the company, associated entities, or any of its employees.

However, Justice Hammerschlag refused to impose the order after concluding there was “no realistic risk or possibility” Dr van Onselen would breach the non-disparagement clause again.

“I am persuaded that the article is a one-off mistake,” he said.

Journalist Peter van Onselen was found to have derided his former employer. Picture: Rohan Thomson/Getty Images

Network Ten was restrained from commenting about the accusations or casting any negative light on Dr van Onselen by the non-disparagement clause.

The author appeared in the Supreme Court via audiovisual link from Europe on Friday.

His legal team and the representatives for Network Ten will return to court at a later date to determine costs and any outstanding issues.