You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Anthony is spot on. It’s even more challenging given there are two presenters. One could say something that could be considered defamatory and both could be sued. It is a very dangerous precedent. It would be interesting to see if the directors and officers insurance has similar limitations.
This is not a discussion of the Wagner case mentioned in the above article. It is about an unfair contractual term and which party bears the cost of litigation. As I said in another comment, nor will I speculate on the interactions between the presenter and management especially in light of recent management changes at 2GB.
As I mentioned in another post at https://radioinfo.com.au/news/george-moore-quits-macradio, when there is no meeting of the minds especially in regards agreement to the terms, there is no contract.
As this article revealed the disagreement was about the contractual term limiting the liability of defamation against the radio station to the first $50 thousand, no contract was formed because the parties did not agree to the terms.
No one was forced into an agreement, as one of the parties said in the article, "...of course, they have the right to put that limit in, and I have the right to say. no thanks...."
Even if there is no case (that is case dismissed) against the broadcaster and presenter or the litigant is vexatious or a liar, the litigation process may well cost over $50 thousand. Similarly the cost may well be over $50 thousand if the losing litigant cannot afford to bear the costs if the litigant cannot afford to pay the broadcaster's and presenter's costs. It has happened on several occasions.
I have never heard the departing employee say anything defamatory or vociferously attack anyone which could raise a cause of action. An over 40 year veteran in broadcasting would know what's defamatory and could only say what can be proven.
Even with a prudent broadcaster with over 40 years experience, HAD THE BROADCASTER SIGNED THE CONTRACT, there may well THE RISK of a litigant or vexatious litigant who may LIE and have NO CASE against the radio station and presenter still taking the radio station through the litigation process (mediation and trial). Even if the litigation process stops at mediation before going to trial, such costs could well be over $50 thousand.
Thus if there is a litigation process, it is UNFAIR that the presenter should bear the burden of the costs if there is no case OR the case is dismissed, especially if the litigant cannot afford to pay the costs. It has happened before where the litigant lost the case and had to pay costs but could not pay still leaving the broadcaster and radio station bearing the costs.
Thus one has to question the purpose of such a stringent contractual term limiting liability of the employer to the first $50 thousand. Such a term is totally unfair, especially for an experienced professional broadcaster of over 40 years who has never defamed anyone but may be subject to a lying or vexatious litigant and go through the litigation process and it does not reach beyond the mediation stage.
Regardless of employer whether broadcaster or newspaper or other kind of employer, no one would want to work for an employer limiting liability for a cause of action in defamation.
Regards
Anthony of exciting Belfield
This is not surprising given all the litigation 2GB and Macquarie has the potential to have to fight. I bet their premiums have shot up in recent years for obvious reasons.
Given these presenters are on big money, I fail to understand why they can't pay for their own indemnity insurance.