Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Amber Harrison

This is a contempt application by the plaintiffs. They seek a declaration that the defendant was in contempt of court for breaching certain Court orders made on 18 July 2017. They do not seek any order that the defendant be punished for contempt. Nor do they seek a costs order against her.

The substantive proceedings are long over; the defendant does not wish to appear or contest the contempt application; and there is nothing to contradict the evidence or submissions on which the plaintiffs rely. There is no forensic contest and the parties consented to the application being dealt with in chambers. I encouraged them to do so in order to reduce costs, to avoid the need for the defendant to come to court and to minimise publicity.

Although I retain a discretion, there is no sound reason for not making the declarations sought. The facts are beyond reasonable doubt. And there is utility in making such a declaration because it will uphold and reinforce the principle that orders of this Court must be obeyed. The declaration will represent a formal disapprobation of the defendant’s conduct in flouting the orders of the Court: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Monarch FX Group Pty Ltd, in the matter of Monarch FX Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1387 at [62]-[65]. And it means that if the defendant commits future breaches of the orders of this Court, the fact of this declaration will be taken into account.

The Court orders made on 18 July 2017 were in the following terms:

I am quite satisfied that the defendant contravened Order 1 on multiple occasions. Lawyers like to call it ‘contumacious disobedience’ but it simply means that the defendant’s conduct was wilful. She was angry, perhaps understandably so, and felt that the court system had let her down and that the plaintiffs had bullied her. What she did and why she did it are perspicuous. Unfortunately for her, I can sympathise but I cannot excuse.

The defendant’s contempt consisted of statements made by her on television and radio; in tweets published by her; and in interviews given by her to the press. The precise events and sequence of publications are set out in the Statement of Charge. The content of the publications is set out in a lengthy affidavit by the plaintiffs’ solicitor. There is no dispute about them. They have already been made public. And there is no point in repeating the detail of them.

The substance of the defendant’s complaints is well known. In her first interview, she said, with some justification, that this dispute started as a ‘spat between two people’ but that it had turned into something different. She said that Seven Network signed her into agreements then did none of them; that she didn’t get the money and the deal fell apart. She then added, in language with which many might be tempted to agree, that ‘My case is a lesson in how many ways you can screw a girl. The boys club has shown that they are still – for now – in control, but we can change that’.

The other publications were in a similar vein and to similar effect. As I said, I can sympathise but I cannot condone. Each of the publications itemised in the Statement of Charge was a clear contravention of the Court orders made on 17 July 2017. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the declaration that they seek.