Melbourne Symphony Orchestra defends pianist Jayson Gillham’s political discrimination claim

The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra has filed its defence to a political discrimination claim brought against it by a pianist who criticised Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Concert pianist Jayson Gillham. Picture: X/@jaysongillham

The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra has filed its defence to a Federal Court political discrimination claim brought by a pianist who criticised Israel’s conduct in Gaza, alleging that part of his pleaded case constitutes an “abuse of the court’s process”.

The MSO was plunged into turmoil in August when concert pianist Jayson Gillham said during a performance that Israel had committed targeted assassinations of Palestinian journalists, which is a war crime that is denied by Israel.

The MSO issued an apology to attendees and cancelled Gillham’s next performance but quickly backtracked and sought to reschedule the concert, which it ultimately called off in its entirety due to “safety concerns”.

Gillham launched legal action in October, claiming the MSO discriminated against him due to his political belief or activity, which he said violated his rights under the federal Fair Work Act.

Gillham is also suing the MSO’s chief operating officer Guy Ross and former managing director Sophie Galaise, who are both defending the claim.

In Gillham’s statement of claim prepared by his barrister Sheryn Omeri KC, he claims the comment he made onstage was factually accurate and cited several sources including reports from the UN Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

In court documents released by the Federal Court this week, the MSO and Mr Ross alleged that was irrelevant and “otherwise an abuse of the Court’s process”.

In their joint defence, prepared by lawyer Leon Zwier of Arnold Block Leibler, the MSO and Mr Ross alleged that section of the claim was “included only for an extraneous or collateral purpose as to impugn the (alleged) conduct of a foreign state, which cannot and should not be the subject of any factual or legal determination by this Court”.

It says the actions the MSO took were lawful and “otherwise consistent with the fulfilment of the MSO’s charitable objectives”, and that there was no contract between the MSO and Gillham, and no legal basis for Gillham’s asserted workplace right.

On Thursday, Mr Gillham said the MSO’s defence was “an incredibly dangerous attack on the rights and freedoms of all artists”.

“The defence they have filed is illogical,” he said.

“They claim they can tell me what I can and can’t say or do, yet also claim they have no workplace relationship to me whatsoever.”

The matter is listed for mediation on December 19.

Mr Gillham, who said his legal battle was about ensuring free speech and artistic freedom, has sought crowd-funding to cover legal costs. As of Thursday, his online funding page had raised more than $23,000.

The controversy surrounding Gillham sparked a broader crisis within the MSO, with musicians passing a vote of no confidence in senior management, Ms Galaise exiting and Peter Garrett appointed to lead an external review into the organisation. Last week, the MSO announced Mr Garrett would no longer lead the review, blaming delays caused by the legal action which meant he was no longer available.

It also announced that its chair and three directors were set to leave in a process of “board renewal”.