Peter van Onselen’s case has appeared in the NSW supreme court, in the latest update as the former Network 10 star is sued by his old employer.
See Also: Peter van Onselen agrees not to ‘ridicule’ Network 10 – for now
On Thursday, Network 10’s barrister Arthur Moses SC told the court that “This is not an even-tempered individual, he has a megaphone and he thinks he can use it,” whilst arguing for a permanent ban on van Onselen making any ‘disparaging’ comments about 10 or Paramount.
Moses brought up a letter that van Onselen allegedly sent 10’s legal team in May, which read “I put Network 10 on notice that by your actions you are harassing a former employee in a concerted campaign to silence them.
“I also reserve my rights as a whistleblower to instigate a public campaign to out such corporate bad behaviour if this harassment continues.”
On the flip side of the case, van Onselen’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC, argued the non-disparagement clause would affect his legitimacy as a journalist, and suggested that something as simple as complaining about his Paramount+ subscription would put him in contempt of court.
“It puts him in breach if he says to his mates at the pub ‘I’m surprised Network 10 purchased that program, it’s not a good program.’.
“It is a lifetime order being sought against a person whose profession it is to talk, and only being able to speak about Network 10 for his entire life in glowing terms would affect his legitimacy and professionalism as a commentator and as an academic.”
For his part, van Onselen appeared on Zoom from Italy’s Amalfi Coast, and told the court that he didn’t read the non-disparagement clause in his redundancy contract. He argued this was because he’d trusted the word of Paramount’s vice president of HR, Anthony McDonald, that he would potentially be able to join a “pile on” against the network, making disparaging comments in certain circumstances.
“I used the phrase ‘If the CEO was caught fucking 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’.”
For his part, Moses accused van Onselen of “making up” that conversation, going so far as to say that he had “come to court to give dishonest evidence in terms of what happened with Mr McDonald.”
Van Onselen denied that he had invented the story.
The case will now be left to Justice David Hammerschlag, who will announce his judgement on an undecided date.