Mark Latham could shell out more than $100,000 after he settled the defamation case brought against him by ABC Life editor Osman Faruqi, five months before the matter was set to go to trial.
Latham, recently appointed NSW leader of One Nation, had accused Faruqi of “anti-white racism” in his online commentary show Mark Latham’s Outsiders. Latham suggested this contributed to Islamist terrorism. Faruqi sued in October last year, saying the comments portrayed him as knowingly assisting terrorists who want to kill Australians. Faruqi’s lawyers Maurice Blackburn put out a statement saying Latham’s bill, including costs and damages, could be in excess of $100,000.
MinterEllison law firm senior associate Sam White told Crikey that the damages (which he estimated to be about $30,000) were relatively small, but that reflected the small audience Latham’s comments would have reached — the comments were published on his website, as well as YouTube, Facebook and the website of his former publisher The Rebel.
“When you’re looking at any settlement, the two obvious factors you need to weigh up are the seriousness of what was said about someone and the extent to which that was broadcast,” White said. “In this case, the publication was a lot more limited than having his face on the front of The Sydney Morning Herald or the Telegraph.”
White said that Latham’s costs would likely be more than Faruqi’s, which is usually the case for defendants in defamation cases. “The main reason is that in defamation cases the burden is on the defendant to prove that a matter is true,” he said.
Only about one in 10 defamation cases make it to trial, depending on the defendant, White said. “Costs can spiral out of control — the deeper you get into it the costs become the significant impediment to resolving a case.”
Costs will also be higher because of Latham’s initial defence, which was struck out entirely before he was allowed to submit another. Justice Michael Wigney said the 76-page defence was an “extraordinary document“. “In order to address Mr Faruqi’s strike out application, it is necessary to attempt to come to grips with it. That is no mean feat,” Wigney said in his decision.
Latham had initially raised nearly all the defences available to him, but in his second defence, said the defamatory imputations that Faruqi claimed would not be made out by a reasonable viewer. The actual costs will be determined by the court.
In a statement on Monday afternoon, Faruqi said he was pleased the case had been resolved:
I hope that this settlement sends a message to other members of the community that while robust debate is part of a healthy democracy, using your platform to harm the reputation of individuals comes at a cost. I strongly believe that our community would be better off if Australians from all backgrounds were able to participate in public life while feeling confident that they won’t be publicly denigrated.
On Twitter, Latham yesterday said the case was an example of “lawfare”, and thanked his supporters: “I would like to thank the many people who last year assisted with Rebel Media crowdfunding for Faruqi defamation case. Due to Federal Court ruling a few months ago, it’s basically a win for lawyers, as lawfare always tends to be.”
Latham went on to plug his NSW upper house candidacy, saying he hoped he’d be elected to somewhere “where thankfully, the left are yet to apply their lawfare and outrage/censorship tactics. Please support free speech by supporting One Nation.”
What do you think of the settlement? Do you think journalists should employ defamation law? Send your comments to boss@crikey.com.au.
What a whiny, self-entitled little baby. Once “freedom of speech”, but doesn’t want any of the consequences.
Or even *wants* “freedom of speech”. Sheesh, where was my brain when I wrote the above?!?!
It’s funny how we make that sort of error – not a typo. per se or simple carelessness.
Almost as if our brain runs like DragonWrite and bangs out phonetically what it hears in our mind.
I do it all the time and wonder how.
Quite often legal costs seem to be higher than settlements – the causes these days are that lawyers finance the the legal fight so they generate their own business the plaintiff get satisfaction the lawyers get the money. Next factor is that law firms on the stock exchange must keep their investors interest as a primary consideration under the corporations act. The stock exchange listed lawyers haven’t been crash hot generating a return for their investors or their creditors – so they have to generate more fees and commence lots of cases [ so some will show a great return] to keep the revenue stream up. Law now is a financial institution activity not a professional service. Just like banking .
Latham didn’t just accuse Faruqi of ‘anti white racism’. He said that people were ‘aiding and abetting Islamic terrorism. They are giving encouragement and succour to the terrorist fanatics’. He said that Faruqi was ‘an instance of this’ and that ‘people are fermenting [sic] hatred of white people. And as such, they are effectively encouraging the terrorists in this political environment, to do their worst’.
Faruqi has his legal costs and a payout; Latham does not admit the imputations claimed against him and calls action against him ‘lawfare’. The real ‘lawfare’ was Latham’s outrageous and absurd defence, thrown out by the court, and his claim that action against his slurs is ‘outrage/censorship tactics’.
Latham is the journalist who inappropriately used defamation law. Latham is the self-promoter who scammed his supporters for the robust defence of his ‘anti white racism’ that he has now avoided putting before a hearing.
Faruqi was right to challenge Latham’s florid accusations. No one should have to bear calumny in silence, whether they are journalists or not.
Well said RFH and I hope the public will continue to fund lawyers to take on One Nation’s and Latham’s brand of ‘free speech’ when necessary.
Yes nice summary explanation rfh. Had Latho just stuck to broadbrush whingeing about anti white racism he’d be unlikely to be in this position. His initial disallowed defence bordered on contempt of court.
It’s nice to know some of his extremely generous parliamentary pension is going to a more deserving home.
Latham has got a nice little taxpayer funded income from his stellar career in federal parliament. He’ll roll in to that retirement home, the NSW upper house and bingo set for life. Not only more public money to wallow in but protection of parliamentary privilege to slander all and sundry. Heaven on a stick and we get to pay to enable this travesty.
Latham was always a bit of a maddie which is why he was given the chance of leading Labor after the appalling bumbler Beezelblub’s small (sic!) target strategy and the hope deadening dreariness of Crean.
Did he fall on his head, a’la Leak, after losing both Houses to the Rodent or is there something more serious wrong with him?
I’d hazard a guess at what ails him but for the threat of being done for defo
It looks pretty serious from here AR.