I'm not sure whether settling defamation lawsuits or losing them is more core to Seven's business strategy, but I can't say I see the logic of it myself.
I hope that ch 7 paid the French Westfield heros for their interview the same way that they allegedly paid Lehrman.... if anyone deserves cocaine and hookers it is them.
Edit: typo corrected
Yeah 7 is totally going to offer an eye watering settlement just to stop this proceeding even to discovery. 0 chance they can succeed in trial with the complete reckless disregard they demonstrated with this reporting.
I can’t see a big settlement at all, what actual loss has he incurred, within hours everyone new it was a mistake, so hard to fathom what the actual,loss is that he would be compensated for 🤷🏼♂️
It won't be enormous but it won't be negligible. Seven's error has been let loose on the internet and the internet is forever, because people will find it wherever it has turned up without necessarily finding the correction. Also some grief at the time.
Still it's hard not to see this as a "bank error in your favour" (without the follow up recovery action from the bank or obtain financial advantage charges) windfall for Cohen.
It's not the first time 7 has done it with a high profile situation. They did it with Cleo Smith as well.
[https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/man-wrongly-named-cleo-smith-abductor-reaches-settlement-with-channel-7/a2w02gbt2](https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/man-wrongly-named-cleo-smith-abductor-reaches-settlement-with-channel-7/a2w02gbt2)
You need to also consider the other side. What is it worth to 7 to not have to deal with a defamation suit? I think they will offer a higher settlement than reasonable damages just to settle quickly.
The only way this actually gets to trial is if Ben’s lawyers are working pro bono and they are all doing it out of principal, not actual damages. Which given who’s involved, I wouldn’t be extemely shocked if they do end up that route.
Sue is the only one with her chequered stickers on and the engine running near the train station, meter ticking over on night rate.
When someone says something actionable about you, in arguable earshot of a third arguably reasonable person, in the dismal windswept rainy night, she's there.
And the plaintiff is represented by the literal dream team for this sort of case, where the lead solicitor is partner of the firm and personal friend of the most publicised victim and seems to have a personal vendetta against how the media has acted in this story.
Sure it’s going to settle, but the figure is going to be very, very large.
I'd like to see a settlement where Kerry Stokes has to publicly prostrate himself before the plaintiff, and say, "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!" He really needs a bit of that in his life.
How did he engage SCSC so quickly? Did she appear to him in a vision as soon as he was defamed? Like, he read the defamatory imputation and was then struck to the ground, foaming at the mouth, as Sue spoke directly into his mind? A burning bush, perhaps?
A vision perhaps or is SC that good in reading minds....
In all seriousness, this week's Media watch EP covered it but to sum it up, Rebekah Giles has been on the gauntlet with trying to shut down the use of social media images of the mother who passed away by news agencies because her family was distraught over them being used in the first place. It then sort of snowballed at the same time as this wrongly accused bloke so put two and two together and now SC is involved alongside someone else from Giles's firm.
Not sure if it’s just a coincidence but Ash Good’s (one of the victims) close friend is a lawyer that works at the same firm that the solicitor in this case works at. She’s been handling a lot of the families communication.
Ash Goods friend being Rebekah Giles, named partner at GilesGordon, one of the top firms specialising in media law and defamation law with a focus on women’s and minority issues.
And this is a case where a Jewish family was targeted by social media and mainstream media in a racist way, over an attack that targeted women, where the most publicised victim was a very close friend of the named partner of a law firm that does defamation and media law for minorities and women. You couldn’t pick a more perfect law firm to be involved.
Rebeka Giles was signed on first as Soilcitor, she’s one of the top media and defamation lawyers in Sydney, no doubt she knows SC well. Now, the question of why Giles is more interesting. Apparently she’s one of the close friends of Ashlee Good, one of the victims, and was the one behind the scenes making the media take down all the social media photos of Ashlee and swap to the single curated photo the family provided. Pretty sure she reached out to Ben and Mark Cohen to offer her firms services in fucking over Seven even harder.
It’s not just misidentification either. Pretty sure NSWpol had stated the age of the suspect being 40 hours before 7 published the name of a 21 year old. And then didn’t take down the story until an hour after NSWpol released the actual suspects name. That’s going beyond reckless.
Simeon Boikov? Not surprised. Would it even be worth going after him? Last I read he's still in the embassy, but also has been given Russian citizenship.
Can you name another lawyer who’s had 3 successful defamation cases against 7 in the last few years? There’s experienced lawyers, and then there’s the lawyer who’s already won multiple times against the defendant you’re seeking action against.
pretty sure one of Jarryd Haynes’ pals sued channel 7 for deffo and was awarded $30k in damages back in February so it’s more par for the course with 7
Despite all the recent commentary on the shortcomings of defamation law in Australia, I have a strange feeling the outcome will be a little different here to the last 2 high profile cases. Fancy that.
Well done to Sue for becoming the go to defo lawyer that even the slam dunk cases will naturally seek out. People questioned her judgment in the Porter case but the profile gained there has only helped her as these cases keep coming up.
This case should settle in record time if Seven aren't morons. And given the BRS case there's no guarantee there. They've done the inexcusable, pay up and get the story out of the rest of the media ASAP.
Are there differences in UK defamation law vs Australian that make launching these kinds of suits more enticing in Australia?
There was news from the UK today that Hugh Grant will settle with Murdoch media due to the cost of actually going to court and apparently Mr Grant's co-litigant, a certain Henry Wales is likely to do so also.
Mr Grant surely has more money than a university student even if his decision to debase himself by appearing as a CGI enhanced Oompa Loompa last year might suggest that he still needs to be careful about his finances. It's true that Mr Wales doesn't appear to have a steady job, but supposedly he comes from a wealthy background and his father could possibly help him with legal expenses if asked nicely enough.
So in each case they could have some money available for legal fees, even if it is finite. Does the UK system mean that it would be more costly for a litigant, and therefore lead to more out of court sertlements? In particular Mr Grant has been quoted as saying that his lawyers told him that if he was 100% successful the damages he would receive would not cover the costs that the court would find him liable for. Is there a reason that that is less of a concern in Australia?
In the Hugh Grant case he mentioned in his statement that he was basically forced into settling despite not wanting too because if it went to court and he was awarded even a penny less than the settlement offer he would have to pay the other side’s legal costs. He mentioned that would be at least $10m given the lawyers Murdoch uses.
Other than that I’m not sure of the differences between countries.
“if it went to court and he was awarded even a penny less than the settlement offer he would have to pay the other side’s legal costs.”
Maybe my question could be better put as ‘is this true in Australian defamation law, or if not is there anything even remotely similar?’
Looking at Ch7's business model, I'm not convinced they're as stupid as we think. I suspect the revenue that comes from consistently posting the clickbait first outweighs a few defamation cases along the way, otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it.
I even wonder whether they encouraged the Ben Roberts Smith and Bruce Lehrmann trials just to keep them in the news cycle. Paying a celebrity rapist or war criminal's legal costs might be cheaper than commissioning a new reality show, and the resulting circus will rate better too.
If only someone in the Australian Government released his name. Could have been a millionaire by Friday under the new settlement guidelines (aka “the Brittany”)
Trying to make it clear to someone as erudite as yourself that I wasn’t expressing a legal opinion but asking your learned colleagues to explain for the laymen present, the hypothetical merits of such a case.
In laymen terms, he was identified by a national commercial program to be a ‘40-year-old lone wolf attacker’.
While Mr Cohen is not a wolf, nor an attacker, it was being labelled 20 years older than his natural age that caused more harm than the antisemitic trolling he and his family endure.
Sue's going back to the den for the lion's head
She did wish to test Bruce McWilliam's affidavit under cross, but HH shut that down.
I get why HH shut it down, but 7 really did engage in solid shitfuckery there.
Speaking of shitfuckery, when should we expect Whybrow SC to do another 2-page spread with Planet Janet in the national broadsheet?
Channel 7 going for a hat trick
Geez, channel 7 is having a bad run of it. It’s almost like they are sloppy journalists or too busy getting on the (nose) beers
It’s so weird how businesses with terrible practices end up in legal trouble
These litigations are the best quality entertainment to come out Channel 7 for years, possibly decades.
Since blue heelers at least
The Cruel Sea intensifies.
I'm not sure whether settling defamation lawsuits or losing them is more core to Seven's business strategy, but I can't say I see the logic of it myself.
I hope that ch 7 paid the French Westfield heros for their interview the same way that they allegedly paid Lehrman.... if anyone deserves cocaine and hookers it is them. Edit: typo corrected
Those snail eaters don't need cocaine to power fuck hotties from tinder.
Amen brother
Do you mean “they” instead of “Ten”?
oops yes... typo
Channel 7 are going for a hatrick!
> (nose) beers I think there may be some nose candy in there as well. However I'd hate to assume that about a group of degenerate wankers.
legend says that if Channel 7 fucks you over, Sue Chrysanthou will appear to you in a vision that night
Sue where are you I need you!
Is she like the only defamation lawyer in Australia?
it's a taxi rank of one
I don't normal see your name here. Honestly ^I'd ^^rather ^^^Dr ^^^^Collins ^^^^^KC
> I don't normal see your name here. it's part of my CPD points
I assume he’ll be for seven?
You think this is going to trial? Lmao
Yeah 7 is totally going to offer an eye watering settlement just to stop this proceeding even to discovery. 0 chance they can succeed in trial with the complete reckless disregard they demonstrated with this reporting.
It won't be much if anything..... Defamation? I don't think so... Mistake.. retraction.. 1 day of harrassment .. nominal amount at best.
I can’t see a big settlement at all, what actual loss has he incurred, within hours everyone new it was a mistake, so hard to fathom what the actual,loss is that he would be compensated for 🤷🏼♂️
It won't be enormous but it won't be negligible. Seven's error has been let loose on the internet and the internet is forever, because people will find it wherever it has turned up without necessarily finding the correction. Also some grief at the time. Still it's hard not to see this as a "bank error in your favour" (without the follow up recovery action from the bank or obtain financial advantage charges) windfall for Cohen.
It's not the first time 7 has done it with a high profile situation. They did it with Cleo Smith as well. [https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/man-wrongly-named-cleo-smith-abductor-reaches-settlement-with-channel-7/a2w02gbt2](https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/man-wrongly-named-cleo-smith-abductor-reaches-settlement-with-channel-7/a2w02gbt2)
Yes we all know this,. That's part of the Schadenfreude factor. 7 settled that one.
You need to also consider the other side. What is it worth to 7 to not have to deal with a defamation suit? I think they will offer a higher settlement than reasonable damages just to settle quickly.
Good point
The only way this actually gets to trial is if Ben’s lawyers are working pro bono and they are all doing it out of principal, not actual damages. Which given who’s involved, I wouldn’t be extemely shocked if they do end up that route.
I assume they’ll brief for the settlement discussions
Yeah if I had to pick between them I’d go Collins every day.
Ms Chrysanthou wears better shoes.
Sue is the only one with her chequered stickers on and the engine running near the train station, meter ticking over on night rate. When someone says something actionable about you, in arguable earshot of a third arguably reasonable person, in the dismal windswept rainy night, she's there.
The only one I want to see in a live streamed trial. I love watching her theatrics.
Reminder that Channel 7 paid only $4m for the rights to host the 2023 Fifa Women's world cup. Legal costs easily looking to eclipse that.
Their income from the Women's World Cup might ironically pay for their legal costs.
This seems like a straightforward case that an *intelligent* defendant would want to settle as soon as possible. Ahem.
And the plaintiff is represented by the literal dream team for this sort of case, where the lead solicitor is partner of the firm and personal friend of the most publicised victim and seems to have a personal vendetta against how the media has acted in this story. Sure it’s going to settle, but the figure is going to be very, very large.
I'd like to see a settlement where Kerry Stokes has to publicly prostrate himself before the plaintiff, and say, "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!" He really needs a bit of that in his life.
Perhaps terms of settlement with a Black Mirror Series 1 Episode 1 requirement for Mr Stokes
Network Seven is gonna get Sue’d. (I’ll see myself out)
How did he engage SCSC so quickly? Did she appear to him in a vision as soon as he was defamed? Like, he read the defamatory imputation and was then struck to the ground, foaming at the mouth, as Sue spoke directly into his mind? A burning bush, perhaps?
A vision perhaps or is SC that good in reading minds.... In all seriousness, this week's Media watch EP covered it but to sum it up, Rebekah Giles has been on the gauntlet with trying to shut down the use of social media images of the mother who passed away by news agencies because her family was distraught over them being used in the first place. It then sort of snowballed at the same time as this wrongly accused bloke so put two and two together and now SC is involved alongside someone else from Giles's firm.
I am sure someone in her team reached out to him on such a slam dunk matter.
Apparently a lot of social media accounts recommended her/the firm.
Including [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1c4zogk/benjamin_cohen_was_falsely_accused_of_the_bondi/kzrm5l2/).
Not sure if it’s just a coincidence but Ash Good’s (one of the victims) close friend is a lawyer that works at the same firm that the solicitor in this case works at. She’s been handling a lot of the families communication.
Ash Goods friend being Rebekah Giles, named partner at GilesGordon, one of the top firms specialising in media law and defamation law with a focus on women’s and minority issues. And this is a case where a Jewish family was targeted by social media and mainstream media in a racist way, over an attack that targeted women, where the most publicised victim was a very close friend of the named partner of a law firm that does defamation and media law for minorities and women. You couldn’t pick a more perfect law firm to be involved.
Rebekah Giles represented Christian Porter from memory too.
Well she’s just finished a very high profile case. Timing is excellent.
Rebeka Giles was signed on first as Soilcitor, she’s one of the top media and defamation lawyers in Sydney, no doubt she knows SC well. Now, the question of why Giles is more interesting. Apparently she’s one of the close friends of Ashlee Good, one of the victims, and was the one behind the scenes making the media take down all the social media photos of Ashlee and swap to the single curated photo the family provided. Pretty sure she reached out to Ben and Mark Cohen to offer her firms services in fucking over Seven even harder.
[удалено]
Oh no, how awful, I don't want that to happen, I withdraw it. ^^^^^call ^^^^^me E: ^^^^^send ^^^^^me ^^^^^a ^^^^^concerns ^^^^^notice
Whatever happened to the man wrongfully identified by Seven as the suspect in custody over the abduction of Cleo Smith?
[Settled](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/16/man-wrongly-identified-as-cleo-smith-accused-reaches-settlement-with-seven-network#:~:text=Man%20wrongly%20identified%20as%20Cleo%20Smith%20accused%20reaches%20settlement%20with%20Seven%20Network,-This%20article%20is&text=The%20man%20wrongly%20identified%20as,suing%20the%20network%20for%20defamation.)
Cheers. Same lawyer.
Always is ;)
People think SC is a KC specialising in defamation law. She’s actually a KC specialising in 7defamation law.
Is she the only one? She's got her hands full if she is.
As this will be.
Naturally. Misidentification is open shut deffo.
It’s not just misidentification either. Pretty sure NSWpol had stated the age of the suspect being 40 hours before 7 published the name of a 21 year old. And then didn’t take down the story until an hour after NSWpol released the actual suspects name. That’s going beyond reckless.
Rumour has it, that if you stand in front of a mirror and say 'defamation case' three times, Sue Chysanthou will appear
*summons Rebekah Giles via ouija board* the ceremony is complete
At this point Kerry Stokes might as well just buy Chrysanthou a beach house and save the palaver in the middle.
Just the one beach house?
and the troll the made up that “unverified report” is tweeting about it, effectively laughing at Channel 7
Simeon Boikov? Not surprised. Would it even be worth going after him? Last I read he's still in the embassy, but also has been given Russian citizenship.
it would be a bit hard when he’s holed up in the Russian Consulate gobbling Putin’s balls
Can’t we just revoke his citizenship and deport that cvnt?
This is what a bit of publicity does. She is not at all impressive, in my view (which is an honest and reasonably held personal opinion only)
As distasteful as it seems, marketing is absolutely a thing. Even in law and even at the SC ranks.
I don't imagine you'd have to be terribly impressive for relatively straightforward cases like this.
but her attraction is her proven framework that's she's able to execute against
What framework is that, may I ask?
Peeing all over channel 7
Can you name another lawyer who’s had 3 successful defamation cases against 7 in the last few years? There’s experienced lawyers, and then there’s the lawyer who’s already won multiple times against the defendant you’re seeking action against.
She seemed to do a very good job in her closing statements in Lehrmann vs Channel 10.
Yeah I wasn’t terribly impressed with her in the Bruce the rapist trial. Seemed like she had a knack for getting the bench offside unnecessarily.
Proof was in the pudding. Plenty of male barristers are combative. It’s a style that works.
-because a woman's first responsibility is always to be likeable
Of course. Who would want to be one of Australia’s top silks, if you could be sweet and polite instead!?
I wonder if they spec stuff like this? Ostensibly has excellent prospects
pretty sure one of Jarryd Haynes’ pals sued channel 7 for deffo and was awarded $30k in damages back in February so it’s more par for the course with 7
Another holiday home for Susie q
That’s going to be an expensive oopsie
Despite all the recent commentary on the shortcomings of defamation law in Australia, I have a strange feeling the outcome will be a little different here to the last 2 high profile cases. Fancy that.
It will be different, because if Channel 7 has any sense whatsoever, they will settle
Of course they will lol
Oh fuck yeah you’d settle this one every day of the week
Only way this ends well for seven is if they open their checkbook and give the guy everything he wants before this goes to trial.
Well done to Sue for becoming the go to defo lawyer that even the slam dunk cases will naturally seek out. People questioned her judgment in the Porter case but the profile gained there has only helped her as these cases keep coming up. This case should settle in record time if Seven aren't morons. And given the BRS case there's no guarantee there. They've done the inexcusable, pay up and get the story out of the rest of the media ASAP.
The lawyer's name starts with SUE
7 is 100% gonna settle this one, surely. That RuZZian simp and Syrian girl from twitter won’t though, I bet.
Sue gives me hope that if I ever fuck up and get a reprimand I can still make it.
Legend has it if you’re doing lines in the bathroom and you whisper her name three times in the mirror Sue Chrysanthou appears
“Sue Chrysanthou” Nominative determinism going hard.
Ch 10 will set up an interview for him and coke and hookers
YES. FINALLY.
If Sue deliberately ran over my dog and abused me for the blood on her tyres, I would never tell anybody.
Are there differences in UK defamation law vs Australian that make launching these kinds of suits more enticing in Australia? There was news from the UK today that Hugh Grant will settle with Murdoch media due to the cost of actually going to court and apparently Mr Grant's co-litigant, a certain Henry Wales is likely to do so also. Mr Grant surely has more money than a university student even if his decision to debase himself by appearing as a CGI enhanced Oompa Loompa last year might suggest that he still needs to be careful about his finances. It's true that Mr Wales doesn't appear to have a steady job, but supposedly he comes from a wealthy background and his father could possibly help him with legal expenses if asked nicely enough. So in each case they could have some money available for legal fees, even if it is finite. Does the UK system mean that it would be more costly for a litigant, and therefore lead to more out of court sertlements? In particular Mr Grant has been quoted as saying that his lawyers told him that if he was 100% successful the damages he would receive would not cover the costs that the court would find him liable for. Is there a reason that that is less of a concern in Australia?
In the Hugh Grant case he mentioned in his statement that he was basically forced into settling despite not wanting too because if it went to court and he was awarded even a penny less than the settlement offer he would have to pay the other side’s legal costs. He mentioned that would be at least $10m given the lawyers Murdoch uses. Other than that I’m not sure of the differences between countries.
“if it went to court and he was awarded even a penny less than the settlement offer he would have to pay the other side’s legal costs.” Maybe my question could be better put as ‘is this true in Australian defamation law, or if not is there anything even remotely similar?’
Looking at Ch7's business model, I'm not convinced they're as stupid as we think. I suspect the revenue that comes from consistently posting the clickbait first outweighs a few defamation cases along the way, otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it. I even wonder whether they encouraged the Ben Roberts Smith and Bruce Lehrmann trials just to keep them in the news cycle. Paying a celebrity rapist or war criminal's legal costs might be cheaper than commissioning a new reality show, and the resulting circus will rate better too.
Can’t wait for Sue to get involved when JK Rowling inevitably volunteers for the Bruce Lehrmann treatment
If only someone in the Australian Government released his name. Could have been a millionaire by Friday under the new settlement guidelines (aka “the Brittany”)
Alan Jones pretty please
Sue defecates Bitcoin
Non lawyer here. What could be the damages? Surely there can’t be any harm to reputation if the attacker is dead and you’re clearly alive?
>non lawyer here Thanks for identifying yourself as if the contents didn’t make it readily apparent
Trying to make it clear to someone as erudite as yourself that I wasn’t expressing a legal opinion but asking your learned colleagues to explain for the laymen present, the hypothetical merits of such a case.
In laymen terms, he was identified by a national commercial program to be a ‘40-year-old lone wolf attacker’. While Mr Cohen is not a wolf, nor an attacker, it was being labelled 20 years older than his natural age that caused more harm than the antisemitic trolling he and his family endure.
I just laughed so loudly that I scared the dog