Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Balkan intrigues ... Old coppers stagger into the Croatian Six inquiry ... 15-year jail terms in 1980 for alleged terrorism ... Miscarriage of justice under review ... Verballing ... Loading-up ... Old fashioned detective "work" ... Evidence so far ... Hamish McDonald reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Splitting heirs ... How to get rid of the Royals – a Republican tours Orstraya … Underneath their robes – sexual harassment on the bench … Credit card fees – so tricky that only economists know what to do … Muted response to Drumgold vindication … Vale Percy Allan ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Blue sky litigation ... Another costly Lehrmann decision ... One more spin on the never-never ... Arguable appeal discovered in the bowels of the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Odious litigants ... Could Lee J have got it wrong on the meaning of rape? ... Calpurnia reports from the Defamatorium ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Online incitements ... Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London ... Read more >> 

"Mistakes of law or fact are a professional inevitability for judges, tribunal members and administrative decision makers."  

Paul Brereton, Commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission, downplaying the Inspector's finding of bias and procedural unfairness with his conflicted involvement in the decision making about Robodebt referrals ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Vale Percy Allan AM ... Obit for friend and fellow-traveller ... Prolific writer on economics and politics ... Public finance guru ... Technocrat with humanity and broad interests ... Theatre ... Animals ... Art ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

A triumph for Victorian morality ... Ashton v Pratt ... In the sack with Dick Pratt ... Meretricious sexual services renders contract void on public policy grounds ... Justice Paul Brereton applies curious moral standard ... A whiff of hypocrisy ... Doubtful finding ... Artemus Jones reporting ... From Justinian's Archive, January 24, 2012 ... Who knew the NACC commissioner had strong views on the sanctity of marriage ... Read more ... 


 

 

« More unmenschionable happenings | Main | Bonding at the bar »
Friday
Jun302006

Are these people fit to run a casino?

Packer consigliere John Alexander orders TV news story attacking Kerry Stokes and then demands reinstatement of the journalist he favoured to produce the attack ... Boning ... Suppression ... Backstabbing ... Vendettas ... Favouritism ... Welcome to the media landscape ... From Justinian's archive, June 30, 2006

Mark Llewellyn: sued Channel Nine for breach of contract

This morning (Friday, June 30, 2006) Justice Steven Rares in the Federal Court ruled that a statement of claim filed on June 23 by former Channel Nine news executive Mark Llewellyn would be available for inspection.

Nine capitulated last night (Thursday) when it became clear that it was unlikely that Rares would grant a suppression order.

The claim was for damages for breach of contract following Llewellyn’s demotion as the network’s head of news and current affairs to a lesser position, and a drop in salary from $750,000 to $400,000 a year.

Llewellyn has since been hired by Channel Seven. Nine Network moved over the weekend to settle the case largely to avoid Llewellyn’s embarrassing evidence getting into the public domain.

On Monday Justice (Smokin') Joe Campbell in the NSW Supreme Court granted Nine a temporary order suppressing publication of Llewellyn’s juicy affidavit, which alleged some dark deeds by Channel Nine and Publishing and Broadcasting executives.

The now “available” statement of claim is not nearly so colourful as the “suppressed” affidavit but does plead the following points in relation to the applicant’s employment:

“On or about 11 January 2006, the applicant was directed by an agent of the respondent (Nine Network Australia Ltd) to prepare a news story attacking Mr Kerry Stokes, of Channel Seven, in retaliation for a news story on Channel Seven attacking Mr James Packer. The applicant refused to follow this direction (‘Stokes incident’)." 

Particulars

"Conversation between the applicant and Mr John Alexander, the chief executive officer and managing director of Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL) at a meeting on or about 11 January, 2006."

“On or about 18 January 2006, the applicant was directed by Mr (Sam) Chisholm (then the CEO of Channel Nine) to terminate Mr John Lyons’ employment, due to poor performance. Mr Lyons was at that time employed in the position of executive producer of the Sunday program.

“Approximately one hour after the applicant carried out Mr Chisholm’s lawful direction to terminate Mr Lyons’ employment, Mr Alexander telephoned the applicant and made threats to the applicant."

Particulars

"On or about 20 January, the respondent, or one of its agents, leaked a story to the press in which the applicant was publicly disparaged for following the lawful directions of Mr Chisholm,

Story in The Australian newspaper headed ‘Packer reversed Sunday sacking’."

Lyons was reinstated by Alexander in his position as executive producer of Sunday. 

“On or about 19 June 2006, the respondent took steps to interfere with the applicant’s ability to obtain alternative employment by making certain allegations about the applicant to Channel Seven (‘Channel Seven incident’).”

The smouldering allegations were spelled out in more details in the suppressed affidavit: 

"At 9.30am on Wednesday 11 January 2006 I met with Mr Alexander in his Park Street office. We had an initial, general conversation about my plans for news and current affairs at Nine and then after about 20 minutes Mr Alexander turned the conversation to the story that appeared on Channel Seven's Today Tonight, which had been critical of James Packer. A conversation occurred as follows: 

Mr Alexander said: 'What's your opinion on Today Tonight's story on James Packer?'

I said: 'Oh, I think it was a snide and cheap piece of journalism.' 

Mr Alexander said: 'What are you going to do about it?'

[snip] 

I said: 'I am concerned that such a tit for tat response might be counter productive. Aren't you concerned that that's how it would be perceived?' 

Mr Alexander said: 'Nine has failed to go on the front foot previously with Seven and I am sick of that.' 

I said: 'If you or others have hard evidence of illegal or unethical conduct by Kerry Stokes then of course, that would be in the public interest to broadcast that story. But in the absence of any such evidence I do not want to run such a story and I do not believe it is journalistically appropriate to do so.' 

Mr Alexander said (raising his voice): 'The Today Tonight piece wasn't journalism. What about a lot of stories on A Current Affair - they're not journalism ... What are you going to do about this? 

[snip] 

Mr Alexander said: 'There are plenty of journalists at Channel Nine who could do this, John Lyons among them. Such a story should be put on A Current Affair or Sunday.' 

I said: 'Well, again, do you have some evidence that I don't know about that Mr Stokes is involved in something illegal or unethical?'

Alexander replied: 'Stokes is a terrible man and a terrible businessman. Everyone who has come into contact with him knows that he is an appalling human being'." 

Packer henchman wanted to launch attack on Stokes

As a consequence of the Stokes incident and the Lyons incident it was claimed that Nine Network breached an implied duty of good faith and an implied duty not to engage in conduct designed, or reasonably likely to seriously damage, or destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.

Under the claim for misleading and deceptive conduct Llewellyn sought to recover $11,250,000 for loss of salary up to his retirement (15 years).

For breach of the fixed term contract $1,055,563, for breaches of the implied duty of good faith, etc a further $100,000, for interfering in Llewellyn’s attempts to find alternative employment $629,793 and for damages for loss of opportunity $1.5 million.

There were other claims of $100,000 for loss of reputation and $100,000 for distress arising out of wrongful repudiation of his contract.

Spiteful vendettas, threats and favouritism – all part of life at the Packer feudal fiefdom. Are these people fit and proper types to have a commercial TV licence?

See: statement of claim

See: Llewellyn affidavit

See: Nine wants Fairfax sources 

See: Ackland column, Sydney Morning Herald 

Footnotes:

John Alexander is now executive deputy chairman of Crown Resorts

Mark Llewellyn is executive producer of Channel 7's Sunday Night

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.