A Federal Court judgment this week has reignited a legal dispute involving News Corp and a Sydney restaurant, with Justice Robert Bromwich finding that Sky News Australia published “highly misleading and even deceptive” statements regarding a confidential settlement. The ruling follows an earlier apology from the Daily Telegraph for “causing distress” during an incident involving a reporter and a pro-Israel activist at the Cairo Takeaway in Newtown.
How the Legal Settlement Was Breached
The conflict centers on a defamation suit brought by pro-Israel activist Ofir Birenbaum against the Cairo Takeaway, which was resolved through a confidential out-of-court agreement. All parties originally committed to publishing a joint statement and keeping settlement terms private. However, Justice Bromwich found that Birenbaum breached the agreement by claiming he had been “completely vindicated” in a separate statement.
The court specifically identified a Sky News segment hosted by Sharri Markson as a source of misleading information. Justice Bromwich concluded that Markson’s report, which asserted that compensation had been paid to Birenbaum, relied on information conveyed by Birenbaum’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles. Although Giles submitted an affidavit in May denying contact with Sky News regarding the proceedings, the court ultimately found that the information about compensation was indeed provided by Giles to Markson on behalf of her client.
Justice Robert Bromwich found that a briefing paper regarding the confidential settlement was distributed to the Daily Mail and Crikey by Rebekah Giles, or someone acting on her behalf, to provide background to journalists.
What Happens Next
Following the Federal Court’s findings, the legal and reputational fallout for the parties involved may continue to develop. The court’s rejection of the affidavit provided by Birenbaum’s legal representative highlights the challenges of maintaining confidentiality in high-profile defamation disputes. Further scrutiny regarding the accuracy of media reporting on such settlements is likely, particularly when journalists receive information from parties who have signed non-disclosure agreements.
The case underscores the risks for media organizations when reporting on confidential legal settlements. By relying on information supplied by a single party—as Justice Bromwich found occurred between the activist’s legal counsel and the broadcaster—outlets may inadvertently become conduits for misleading claims that contradict the spirit of court-ordered or agreed-upon confidentiality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the Daily Telegraph involved in this dispute?
The Daily Telegraph previously issued an apology in March for “causing distress” after sending a reporter and a pro-Israel activist to the Cairo Takeaway, an event that became part of the broader legal dispute.
What specific findings did the court make about Sky News?
Justice Bromwich found that Sky News published “highly misleading and even deceptive” statements by reporting that compensation had been paid to Ofir Birenbaum, information the court determined was provided by Birenbaum’s lawyer.
What was the role of the affidavit submitted by Rebekah Giles?
Rebekah Giles submitted an affidavit denying contact with Sky News regarding the dispute. However, the court did not enter this into evidence after it was revealed she would not appear for cross-examination, and the judge subsequently found that the compensation information had been conveyed to the broadcaster by her.
How will future media coverage of confidential legal agreements be impacted by these court findings?