What’s going on with Australia’s most prestigious media awards? It seems that winning a Walkley award these days is a precursor to costly legal action in which the journalist who won is pilloried in the courts for doing what their profession considers to be an outstanding job.

At least three cases in recent years demonstrate that winning a Walkley does not provide immunity from prosecution. The most recent example is being played out this week in the ACT Supreme Court, where the millionaire’s factory, Macquarie Bank, is suing The Australian and its business columnist, Michael West, over a story in March 2005.

West is in good company. The former NSW Fisheries Minister, Eddie Obeid, sued the Sydney Morning Herald last year after reporters Anne Davies and Kate McClymont alleged Obeid had sought a donation in return for fast tracking a development application. That story won journalism’s highest honour, the Gold Walkley, but it didn’t save them from a savaging by the NSW Supreme Court. Nor did it save their newspaper which was ordered to pay Obeid $162,173 in damages and several hundreds of thousands more in legal costs.

At the time, The Australian’s columnist, and one of the Walkley judges, Mark Day, said the reporters would not have won if it were known that the allegations were unsubstantiated. However he defended it as a significant piece of investigative journalism and said the award should not be taken back.

The Nine Network settled another long running legal dispute in February involving another Walkley winning story. Former Sunday reporter John Lyons won the 2001 Walkley for Broadcast Interviewing while it was subject to legal action from the NRMA’s Nick Whitlam. Gerald Stone, in his recent book on Channel Nine, said the interview contained “one of the worst examples of unfair reporting I have seen in my 25 years in television” and accused Lyons of either intentionally beating up the story or being “utterly inexperienced.” Lyons retorted that the Whitlam interview was just one of several he submitted for the award and that the disputed part was not included in his entry. Lyons, who disclosed that the story was the subject of legal action on his Walkley entry form, is still threatening to sue Stone over the book.

Meanwhile Nine cleared the litigation off its books by settling out of court with Whitlam for a figure reported to be between $150,000 and $200,000.

Macquarie’s case against The Australian concerns a column and feature written by West in March 2005, in which he alleged that Macquarie Bank had misrepresented the true value of the notorious Beaconsfield gold mine. Macquarie has alleged 13 imputations – or defamatory meanings – in the article. The Australian is obviously throwing a lot at the case and giving it prominent coverage in its news pages. There’s a lot at stake for Macquarie too as the case could be seen as a test of the bank’s suitability to hold a financial license.

West also submitted his story for a Walkley after the arrival of the writ. It is understood he did so because he wanted to get it out to a wider audience. The plan worked as the Walkley judges concluded it was the best piece of business reporting for 2005. The test now for West is whether judgement from his peers is the same as judgement from the bench.