The Daily Telegraph is set to fork out a record $2.87 million in damages for defaming Geoffrey Rush after losing an appeal in the Federal Court last week — but the real price is likely to be much, much higher.
In total, the lawsuit could cost News more than $10 million, defamation experts tell Crikey.
Damages are only part of the bill. Lawyers estimate the company’s own legal costs for the entire trial will exceed $3 million, given it employed two barristers and had at least three or four lawyers present at any given time.
The company will also have to pay Rush’s legal costs, which are calculated on an indemnity basis, meaning fees, charges and expenses have to be paid in their entirety. For Rush, this could amount to between $2 and $3 million.
The pretrial and preparation were lengthy, with 14 days spent in front of Justice Michael Wigney in pretrial matters before the case had even started.
“Preparation would have probably been around $750,000,” Minter Ellison media lawyer Peter Bartlett told Crikey.
“Preparation was costly because there was a huge amount going on. The News lawyers were desperate to get someone to give evidence.”
There were 15 days of trial, three days spent in post-trial case management hearings, and two days of appeal.
“The Queen’s Counsel would have probably been around $10,000 to $12,000 a day on both sides,” Bartlett said.
Junior counsel cost about $7000 a day, while solicitors cost about $5000 a day.
The appeal, Bartlett estimated, would have probably cost between $100,000 and $150,000 in total.
But it’s not just legal fees that News Corp has sunk into the case. The media empire had staff, including journalists, working on the story in all parts of the world.
Travel costs may also be a factor. We know from the court documents that News’ Australian legal counsel Michael Cameron was approaching movie producers about the case while on holiday in California. And a story that appeared in The Australian just days before the appeal hearing last year apparently shows Washington reporter Cameron Stewart flew to Los Angeles to cover a charity event that Rush was involved in, in an attempt to show Rush was able to work after all.
Rush’s team also flew in two expert witnesses from the US — Rush’s Hollywood agent Fred Specktor and his Hollywood lawyer Richard Marks — which would have added around $50,000 each in flights and fees.
Actress Robyn Nevin was also flown in from her French chateau to give testimony on Rush’s reputation.
Then there’s the reputational cost (assuming the Telegraph has one to lose). “The damage to the masthead is significant — dollars are one thing, their reputation is another,” says Bartlett.
Support journalism that makes things better, not worse.
Rupert Murdoch had never had a US president in his pocket before Donald Trump landed there in 2016.
This week, we explored the relationship between the two men and why Murdoch should be held to account for the making of Trump.
Where do you start with dismantling the media empire that delivered us a phenomenon like Trump?
Here’s one thing you can do: Support the journalism that makes things better, not worse.
Subscribe to Crikey today with the promo code MADEMEN and get 50% off an annual membership.
Hurry, 48 hours only.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
The swill that is at the heart of the Murdoch enterprise.
The aftermath of this appeal was worth one article. Two at a stretch. There are so many other more important matters to put this amount of resources into. And since it’s finished it’s no longer sub judice. So why are all the comments switched off ?
What? You think that this is a free speech zone?
Look at today’s edition – not quite the record of last week but still a disgrace for what was once a progressive site.
If Murdoch’s maggoty, media muck goes bad, fails, bankrupt, ended, it will be so good for civilisation, intellectual activity, culture, sense, life at large. Every extension of Murdoch wilfulness is putrid, soiled, ego-obseesed, fuhrer frothily foul. If the ink were safe to the health of an anus, its true purpose might be guaranteed. I remember lighting a fire once, with a crumpled Murdoch print face, lovely, so, may his bumboys and joygirls find decent work otherwise…
Don’t hold back Paradise..!! But pretty much spot.
That last paragraph of the article was the big point – does the Tele or any of Murdoch’s media have a reputation to lose?
No comments allowed on Michael Bradley’s article, and for good reason I guess – he gives it to Hanson, Nine and Seven with both barrels with absolute accuracy, but doubtless he and Crikey tread a fine legal line in doing so.
And yet Bradley uses words,slurs and outrageous calumnies which would a subs paying commenter banned.
Newscorp avoids upto $800m of tax. So a mere $10m on this shabby case is water off a duck’s back. As for reputation, I don’t think they have much of it anyway. See them go after Dan Andrews. Shrill, screeching banshees.
The sorry thing is that even if Rush was guilty of inappropriate behaviour, the poor actress on the other side only wanted acknowledgement and an apology. The Telegraph trashed her life, damaged her standing as well as the effect on Rush. They should have to pay Eryn Norvill as well. It is fair to say that my experience (limited) of the music and theatre caper shows that the boundaries if what happens and what should are very flexible. I have seen mischievous women, men behaving badly and others simply going with the flow. Who knows what is and isn’t right in that context. The big wrong is News making everything worse.
On the same line…Junior Counsel $7 000. Solicitor 5K. There is more about the legal profession that is rotten than just a certain ex justice.
Well said OGO. Norville is as wronged as Rush and the theatre company blabbermouths should share culpability.
I wonder if Crikey sought the views or consent of either before this big splash.
Agree – they should have been co-plaintiffs.
Both egregiously wronged.