Latest news with #Lattouf
The Guardian
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Pro-Israel group who complained about Antoinette Lattouf's ABC employment claim Age and SMH breached suppression order
A pro-Israel lobby group has asked the federal court to refer a group of editors, reporters and lawyers from the Age and Fairfax Media for contempt proceedings, alleging the newspapers breached a suppression order made by the judge in the Antoinette Lattouf unlawful termination case. Justice Darryl Rangiah granted a suppression order during the unlawful termination case in February to protect the identities and contact details of pro-Israel individuals who had contacted the ABC with complaints about Lattouf's employment. Lattouf was taken off air three days into a five-day casual contract in December 2023 after she posted on social media about the Israel-Gaza war. In June 2024, the Fair Work Commission found she was sacked and she brought an unlawful termination case in the federal court. Rangiah's judgment is yet to be handed down. The court heard during the case then ABC chair Ita Buttrose was frustrated that she was being targeted by the complainants and that she had repeatedly asked then managing director David Anderson why Lattouf was still on air. On day seven of the hearing, Rangiah reminded the parties about his suppression order, asking any media who may have published the names of some of the people who complained about Lattouf to comply with the order. 'I made a suppression order last Monday. The solicitors acting for the applicants who sought the suppression order have written to the court asserting that a particular media organisation has published articles which disclose the identities of those protected by the suppression order,' he said at the time. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter At a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for the pro-Israel group, expressed her frustration with the Age and Fairfax's response to her legal letters and sought a referral under federal court rule 42.16 'to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt'. The editors of the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, Patrick Elligett and Bevan Shields, and two Age reporters are among the eight individuals named in the application. 'Regrettably, from my client's perspective, we had no choice but to bring this application, including against a solicitor, a senior lawyer at Fairfax, who did not respond once to over half [a] dozen letters and a communication from your Honour from the bench,' Chrysanthou said. Chrysanthou said the respondents had accused her clients of bringing a vexatious application and have denied the contraventions and the alleged contempt. Asked by Rangiah what the nature of the contempt is, Chrysanthou said: 'The alleged contempt is acts by journalists, their supervising editors and their employer, the corporate entity, and their lawyers, to whom we corresponded half a dozen times and received no response.' Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Tom Blackburn SC, acting for the respondents, said because contempt was a criminal charge it was a 'very serious allegation' to make against lawyers because they are officers of the court and he had not been given particulars. Of the journalists named in the application, Blackburn said it was unclear how they 'have the power or the authority to cause publication or to prevent the publications being taken down'. Justice Rangiah ordered Chrysanthou to provide written particulars of the allegations including what parts of the article disclose prohibited information 'and on what basis you say that each alleged contender is responsible for such publication or disclosure'. The interlocutory application has been listed for hearing on 19 June.
The Age
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Pro-Israel group who urged ABC to sack Lattouf push for contempt case against Herald, Age
A group of pro-Israel letter-writers who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf before she was removed from Sydney radio are pushing for contempt proceedings to be initiated against The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age over an alleged breach of a suppression order. On February 3, during Lattouf's Federal Court unlawful termination suit against the ABC, Justice Darryl Rangiah made a 10-year suppression order over the 'names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints' about Lattouf's employment by the ABC. The order was made 'on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons'. Rangiah said at the time that he was satisfied there was 'a substantial risk' the individuals 'will face, at least, vilification and harassment if their identities and contact details were available to the public'. He has reserved his decision in the Lattouf case. While the suppression order was sought by nine individuals, the order ultimately granted by Rangiah was not phrased as protecting the identity of only those nine people. Lawyers acting for people whose identities are said to be protected by the suppression order allege the Herald and The Age – the editors of both mastheads, Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett, as well as two in-house lawyers, two reporters and the publishing companies – breached the order. At a preliminary hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the group, said: 'Only one order is sought, and that is a referral under … the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt.' But Tom Blackburn, SC, acting for the mastheads, said the registrar would have no 'independent discretion not to commence contempt proceedings' if Rangiah made that order, because he would be directing the registrar to do so. Blackburn said the allegations were of the 'utmost seriousness', and it was a particularly 'grave and serious thing' to allege that two lawyers, who are officers of the court, were involved in an alleged contempt.
Sydney Morning Herald
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Pro-Israel group who urged ABC to sack Lattouf push for contempt case against Herald, Age
A group of pro-Israel letter-writers who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf before she was removed from Sydney radio are pushing for contempt proceedings to be initiated against The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age over an alleged breach of a suppression order. On February 3, during Lattouf's Federal Court unlawful termination suit against the ABC, Justice Darryl Rangiah made a 10-year suppression order over the 'names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints' about Lattouf's employment by the ABC. The order was made 'on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons'. Rangiah said at the time that he was satisfied there was 'a substantial risk' the individuals 'will face, at least, vilification and harassment if their identities and contact details were available to the public'. He has reserved his decision in the Lattouf case. While the suppression order was sought by nine individuals, the order ultimately granted by Rangiah was not phrased as protecting the identity of only those nine people. Lawyers acting for people whose identities are said to be protected by the suppression order allege the Herald and The Age – the editors of both mastheads, Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett, as well as two in-house lawyers, two reporters and the publishing companies – breached the order. At a preliminary hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the group, said: 'Only one order is sought, and that is a referral under … the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt.' But Tom Blackburn, SC, acting for the mastheads, said the registrar would have no 'independent discretion not to commence contempt proceedings' if Rangiah made that order, because he would be directing the registrar to do so. Blackburn said the allegations were of the 'utmost seriousness', and it was a particularly 'grave and serious thing' to allege that two lawyers, who are officers of the court, were involved in an alleged contempt.
The Guardian
28-02-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Lattouf v the ABC: how a five-day contract sparked a 14-month, multi-million dollar legal saga
The case of Antoinette Lattouf vs the ABC is finally done. What began as a casual fill-in gig for Lattouf – hired to be a presenter for five days in the downward run into the Christmas period in 2023 – has turned into a sprawling, million-dollar unlawful termination case splashed across every news outlet for weeks. One cannot imagine there has ever been a week-long casual presenting job at the ABC that has ever attracted this much attention or cost the national broadcaster so much. The agreed facts are these: Lattouf was hired as a fill-in presenter on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023. Three days in to a five-day contract, after ABC management had received multiple coordinated complaints about Lattouf's presence on air, the ABC was alerted to a post of Lattouf's on Instagram about the war in Gaza. Lattouf was asked by management to pack her things and leave and informed that her services would not be required for the rest of the week. Why this happened, and whether the ABC broke any laws in doing what it did, is what has been at issue over nearly two weeks of this case, which concluded before the federal court in Sydney on Friday. The financial costs of it all were revealed this week when the ABC told Senate estimates it had spent $1.1m on external legal representation to defend the case. Lattouf has indicated that her legal fees approach the million-dollar mark as well, posting on Instagram that the money raised from a Go Fund Me for her legal costs 'accounts for about a quarter of the cost of this litigation'. At the time, the fundraiser had received about $180,000 in donations. But the emotional costs were also on display on Friday afternoon. At the end of proceedings, Lattouf addressed the media, speaking publicly for the first time since her case against the ABC began, her hands shaking violently. The journalist made it through several minutes of her speech before her composure cracked. 'I could not have done this alone. There were days I could barely get out of bed. The public's unwavering support kept me standing,' she said, pausing while tears came. 'From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. You gave me strength when I felt that I was drowning from the weight of this.' There was drama in the courtroom, even on the last day, as the ABC's barrister, Ian Neil SC, presented his closing arguments. Neil told Justice Darryl Rangiah that if the judge should find that the ABC had broken the law in the handling of Lattouf's employment that 'the compensation should be no more than modest', disputing her claim for compensation due to emotional distress. He conceded that the ABC's conduct towards Lattouf 'caused her distress and was a negative consequence', but said 'a reasonable person wouldn't predict that Ms Lattouf being removed from the air in the circumstances would cause her distress.' Lattouf sat through this exchange, head bowed, eyes closed, shaking her head. Oshie Fagir, Lattouf's barrister, strongly disagreed. She said on Friday that the ABC had defended the case in such an 'objectionable' way – including in the personal matters on which Lattouf was cross-examined by the ABC – that he would seek additional compensation if his client was successful. One part of Neil's closing argument had Lattouf's side of the courtroom rippling with apparently furious energy; Lattouf standing up to walk to her solicitor and whisper to him. The ABC has claimed throughout this case that Lattouf was not sacked from her role, merely asked not to present the final two shows, something Neil argued it was contractually allowed to do. He also disputed that taking Lattouf off air was meant as a sanction. 'Taking someone off air is designed to protect the ABC, not to punish the employee,' he said. 'It may be both,' suggested Rangiah. 'But in this case, it was only the first,' said Neil. 'Literally, no one ever talks about punishing her, or sanctioning her … And what is the punishment, we ask rhetorically. You don't have to do work, but you get paid for it? We always have the right to tell you not to do any work; we're telling you not to do any work. Are we punishing you? Are we disciplining you? Are we taking money off you?' Rangiah pressed him: 'So if an employee is suspended from their employment and still paid for it. That's not an adverse consequence for them?' 'It would depend on the circumstances,' said Neil. 'But here we're talking about two shifts, two programs.' Lattouf told the press pack at the conclusion of proceedings, it was never about two missed shifts. 'This case was never just about me, it was never about five days of work, it was about protecting the principles that should matter to all of us.' Rangiah has retired to deliberate, and it will probably be months before Lattouf, the ABC and the watching public, learn of his decision.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
ABC proposes ‘modest' payout to Lattouf if it loses court battle, despite admitting it added to her psychological pain
The ABC accepts taking Antoinette Lattouf off air was a contributing factor in the psychological condition that underpins her claim for hurt and distress, the broadcaster has told the federal court. In closing submissions for the ABC, Ian Neil SC said that in the event the corporation was found to have breached the Fair Work Act, the broadcaster did accept it was a contributing factor to the psychological distress Lattouf now suffers. Lattouf, who is suing the ABC for unlawful termination, told the court in earlier evidence she suffered from paranoia and sleeplessness since she was removed from air three days into a five-day casual contract in December 2023. She had also become a heavier drinker, she said. Neil did not submit there should be no compensation, but that there was no evidence the ABC was aware of a pre-existing psychological condition, and any compensation should be 'modest'. Wrapping up the ABC case, Neil said the evidence showed there were 'many intermingled causes for the exacerbation of her pre-existing psychological condition'. 'One is the psychological condition itself, and the other is all the other things that operate on her mind: the burden of being a poster girl for justice, humanity and a free and fair press; the adverse consequences of attracting attention as an activist for one perspective of a hotly controversial issue.'When asked by Justice Darryl Rangiah if Lattouf, 41, was only caused distress because she had an underlying pre-existing psychological condition, Neil replied: 'Yes, that's the evidence in this case.' Neil argued that the ABC's view was that Lattouf not sacked but she was 'relieved of the obligation to perform any further work'. The removal – which was 'designed to protect the ABC' – had nothing to do with discrimination, race or political opinion, he said. 'She was relieved of the obligation to perform any further work. We have the right to do that. There was no express right for Ms Lattouf to actually perform work. 'It's not a case about discrimination, it's not a case about differential treatment,' he said. 'It's not an unfair dismissal case. It's not a case about the fairness of anything that was done in relation … to Ms Lattouf.' The ABC asked Rangiah not to rely on testimony by Lattouf's line manager, Elizabeth Green. Earlier in the hearing, Green gave evidence that Lattouf was not given a direction not to post on social media about the Israel-Gaza war. Throughout the hearing, both sides have explored the question: what is the difference between a direction and a suggestion? Neil said no top ABC managers recall Green telling them that she did not give Lattouf a direction, and they were acting on the assumption she was given a direction not to post. 'She was told, in effect, not to post anything in relation to the conflict in Israel and Gaza during the week she was with the ABC,' he said. Neil pointed to a text message sent by the chief content officer, Chris Oliver-Taylor, about Lattouf to the managing director, David Anderson. In it, Oliver-Taylor wrote: 'Confirming my view that she has breached our editorial policies whilst in our employment. 'She also failed to follow a direction from her manager not to post anything whilst working with the ABC. As a result of this I have no option but to stand her down.' The text message was sent to Anderson minutes after a key ABC meeting, when Lattouf's fate was being decided. Neil said that if Oliver-Taylor had heard Green say during that meeting that she did not give Lattouf a direction, why would he have immediately lied to the managing director in that text. 'What earthly reason would he have for lying, misrepresenting, what he had been told … two minutes before, to his superior,' he said. Neil said the sole reason for Lattouf's dismissal was the posting of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) post. Lattouf was let go after she shared the post that said Israel had used starvation as a 'weapon of war' in Gaza. Neil said the post was not the same as the ABC news report on the HRW report. 'This wasn't a like-for-like comparison, the ABC had not reposted the Human Rights Watch story as Ms Lattouf had done,' he said. 'They had done something much more nuanced and balanced than that.' He said the 'the comparison was never a sound one'.
