Key Points
- Peter van Onselen signed an agreement not to disparage Network 10 or its owners when he exited in March.
- He later published a column in the Australian calling the network "the minnow of Australian commercial television".
- NSW Supreme Court Justice David Hammerschlag ruled the article was in breach of the contract.
Former Network Ten political editor Peter van Onselen has lost a contract breach lawsuit against his former employer over a scathing column he wrote in The Australian.
"I am persuaded that the article is a one-off mistake," NSW Supreme Court Justice David Hammerschlag said in his judgment on Friday, in which he also wrote that he did not find van Onselen was a "convincing witness".
"The making of a declaration is, in the particular circumstances of this case, sufficient assuagement for Ten of its grievance."
Ten sought a declaration that van Onselen had breached the contract and a permanent injunction restraining him from further breaching it.
While Hammerschlag declared the article was in breach, he did not grant the injunction, concluding "there is no realistic risk or possibility that Dr van Onselen will, in the light of my findings, breach" the contract again.
Network Ten sued Peter van Onselen, a political commentator and academic, over the column in The Australian he wrote months after he left the network. Source: AAP / Mick Tsikas
The network sued the political commentator and academic over the column in The Australian months later, questioning Paramount's plummeting share price and referring to the network as "the minnow of Australian commercial television".
Zooming into his hearing last month from the Italian Amalfi Coast, van Onselen said he did not read the non-disparagement clause in his redundancy contract after being reassured by Paramount human resources executive Anthony McDonald he could disparage Ten in various circumstances.
"I used the phrase 'If the CEO was caught f***ing a goat and the rest of the media was piling on, then surely I would not be precluded from doing the same'," van Onselen told the court.
"I remember Mr McDonald being reassuring and saying something to the effect of 'of course, hopefully it won't come to that'."
McDonald told the court the conversation did not happen.
When Ten's counsel, Arthur Moses, asked van Onselen if he read the final redundancy document before signing it, van Onselen replied: "No, I did not".
The agreement Peter van Onselen signed when he left in March stated he was not to disparage Network 10 or its United States-based owner Paramount in exchange for a $165,000 redundancy. Source: AAP / Lee Besford
His barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, argued the non-disparagement clause and court order sought never to disparage Paramount or its employees was overbearing.
She said the commentator could technically be in contempt of court if he was dissatisfied with his Paramount+ streaming service and wrote an email of complaint to the company.
"It puts him in breach if he says to his mates at the pub, 'I'm surprised Network Ten purchased that program, it's not a good program'," Chrysanthou told the court.
"It is a lifetime order being sought against a person whose profession it is to talk, and only being able to speak about Network Ten for his entire life in glowing terms would affect his legitimacy and professionalism as a commentator and as an academic."
Hammerschlag rejected her assertion.
"Well then, why did he sign it? This is a contract case," he said.
Ten made no claim for damages, but has until 21 July to submit a claim for costs to the court.
