Latest news with #Rangiah
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Legal bid against Herald and Age in Lattouf case fails
The Federal Court has rejected a legal bid by a group of pro-Israel letter-writers to have The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age punished for contempt of court for allegedly breaching a suppression order protecting the identity of people who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf. On February 3, during Antoinette Lattouf's unlawful termination suit against the ABC, Justice Darryl Rangiah made a 10-year suppression order over the 'names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints' about Lattouf's employment by the ABC. The order was made 'on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons'. Rangiah said at the time that he was satisfied there was 'a substantial risk' the individuals 'will face, at least, vilification and harassment if their identities and contact details were available to the public'. Lawyers acting for people whose identities are said to be protected by the suppression order in the Lattouf case allege Herald editor Bevan Shields and The Age editor Patrick Elligett, as well as two in-house lawyers, two reporters and the publishing companies, breached the order. The four articles at the centre of the dispute were published last year, before the suppression order was made. Rangiah noted in a decision on Friday that '[the] articles remained available online even after the order was made' but were amended in March this year 'to remove the names of the relevant persons without any admission that the publishers were obliged to do so'. At a preliminary hearing in April, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the group, said: 'Only one order is sought, and that is a referral under … the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt'. But Tom Blackburn, SC, acting for the mastheads, said the registrar would have no 'independent discretion' and would have to commence contempt proceedings if Rangiah made the order.
The Age
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Contempt bid by pro-Israel lobbyists against Herald and Age in Lattouf case fails
The Federal Court has rejected a legal bid by a group of pro-Israel letter-writers to have The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age punished for contempt of court for allegedly breaching a suppression order protecting the identity of people who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf. On February 3, during Antoinette Lattouf's unlawful termination suit against the ABC, Justice Darryl Rangiah made a 10-year suppression order over the 'names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints' about Lattouf's employment by the ABC. Antoinette Lattouf outside the Federal Court in Sydney last month. Credit: Oscar Colman The order was made 'on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons'. Rangiah said at the time that he was satisfied there was 'a substantial risk' the individuals 'will face, at least, vilification and harassment if their identities and contact details were available to the public'. Lawyers acting for people whose identities are said to be protected by the suppression order in the Lattouf case allege Herald editor Bevan Shields and The Age editor Patrick Elligett, as well as two in-house lawyers, two reporters and the publishing companies, breached the order. The four articles at the centre of the dispute were published last year, before the suppression order was made. Rangiah noted in a decision on Friday that '[the] articles remained available online even after the order was made' but were amended in March this year 'to remove the names of the relevant persons without any admission that the publishers were obliged to do so'. At a preliminary hearing in April, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the group, said: 'Only one order is sought, and that is a referral under … the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt'. But Tom Blackburn, SC, acting for the mastheads, said the registrar would have no 'independent discretion' and would have to commence contempt proceedings if Rangiah made the order.
The Age
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Legal bid against Herald and Age in Lattouf case fails
The Federal Court has rejected a legal bid by a group of pro-Israel letter-writers to have The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age punished for contempt of court for allegedly breaching a suppression order protecting the identity of people who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf. On February 3, during Antoinette Lattouf's unlawful termination suit against the ABC, Justice Darryl Rangiah made a 10-year suppression order over the 'names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints' about Lattouf's employment by the ABC. The order was made 'on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons'. Rangiah said at the time that he was satisfied there was 'a substantial risk' the individuals 'will face, at least, vilification and harassment if their identities and contact details were available to the public'. Lawyers acting for people whose identities are said to be protected by the suppression order in the Lattouf case allege Herald editor Bevan Shields and The Age editor Patrick Elligett, as well as two in-house lawyers, two reporters and the publishing companies, breached the order. The four articles at the centre of the dispute were published last year, before the suppression order was made. Rangiah noted in a decision on Friday that '[the] articles remained available online even after the order was made' but were amended in March this year 'to remove the names of the relevant persons without any admission that the publishers were obliged to do so'. At a preliminary hearing in April, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the group, said: 'Only one order is sought, and that is a referral under … the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt'. But Tom Blackburn, SC, acting for the mastheads, said the registrar would have no 'independent discretion' and would have to commence contempt proceedings if Rangiah made the order.
The Age
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Age
What the Antoinette Lattouf decision means for employers and employees
Antoinette Lattouf's victory against the ABC in her unlawful termination case is expected to trigger a flurry of disputes about the scope of workers' protections against being sacked over their political views. In a decision on Wednesday, Federal Court Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC sought to appease pro-Israel lobbyists in 2023 by axing Lattouf's five-day Sydney radio contract after three days because 'she held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza'. This contravened Fair Work Act protections against the termination of employment on grounds including political opinion. Lattouf's opinions had been expressed on social media but not on radio. Michael Bradley, managing partner of Marque Lawyers, said Rangiah found both 'holding political opinions and expressing them' were protected, 'and he took a pretty wide view of how that protection works'. Asked if the Lattouf decision would encourage other employees to test the limits of the law, he said: 'Yes, it definitely will. Those conversations are already happening.' Loading But the decision did not mean employers could never impose limits on employees' public expression of political opinions. No direction issued to Lattouf Bradley said Rangiah did not 'engage with the scenario where an employee has been directed not to … go on social media and make comments on political issues' because he found that in Lattouf's case 'there wasn't a direction at all, just advice'.
Sydney Morning Herald
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
What the Antoinette Lattouf decision means for employers and employees
Antoinette Lattouf's victory against the ABC in her unlawful termination case is expected to trigger a flurry of disputes about the scope of workers' protections against being sacked over their political views. In a decision on Wednesday, Federal Court Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC sought to appease pro-Israel lobbyists in 2023 by axing Lattouf's five-day Sydney radio contract after three days because 'she held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza'. This contravened Fair Work Act protections against the termination of employment on grounds including political opinion. Lattouf's opinions had been expressed on social media but not on radio. Michael Bradley, managing partner of Marque Lawyers, said Rangiah found both 'holding political opinions and expressing them' were protected, 'and he took a pretty wide view of how that protection works'. Asked if the Lattouf decision would encourage other employees to test the limits of the law, he said: 'Yes, it definitely will. Those conversations are already happening.' Loading But the decision did not mean employers could never impose limits on employees' public expression of political opinions. No direction issued to Lattouf Bradley said Rangiah did not 'engage with the scenario where an employee has been directed not to … go on social media and make comments on political issues' because he found that in Lattouf's case 'there wasn't a direction at all, just advice'.
