A defamation case between a Canberra union boss and politician is set for a courtroom showdown after mediation talks broke down.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Win lose, or draw, the case is expected to cost the ACT taxpayer hundreds-of-thousands of dollars as the government agreed to pick up the tab for Canberra Liberals MLA Jeremy Hanson.
CFMEU ACT secretary Dean Hall is suing Mr Hanson for allegedly defamatory comments he made during an interview on talkback radio last year.
Mr Hanson is fighting the allegations.
It is understood Mr Hanson has been indemnified by the ACT taxpayer – meaning it will foot the legal bill – although the government has declined to confirm the arrangement.
A spokesperson for ACT Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay said: "Commenting on whether a member is, or is not, receiving assistance towards legal representation or advice discloses personal information and could potentially affect court proceedings. For that reason the Attorney cannot provide any information on this matter."
The matter was ordered to mediation but the talks recently broke down, paving the way for a courtroom battle next month.
In March last year, Mr Hanson appeared on 2CC to discuss an agreement between UnionsACT and the ACT Government that gave unions a role in procurement decisions.
Mr Hanson labelled it "secret deal" and argued that it gave unions an effective veto power over government purchase.
Mr Hall alleges the then Liberals leader defamed him when he said: "Do we want people like Dean Hall, who runs the CFMEU, or others who potentially are facing charges or have been convicted of charges, ah, given access to, ah, company documents?."
Mr Hall filed action against both 2CC and Mr Hanson in the ACT Supreme Court in June last year.
Mr Hall's case argues Mr Hanson's remarks implied that the union boss was so untrustworthy or dishonest that he should not be given access to government tender documents, because he had either been convicted of, or was facing, criminal charges.
Mr Hall has been convicted only of drink driving, an offence more than a decade old, well before his tenure in the unions.
The defamation claim said that the remarks had left Mr Hall "gravely injured in his feelings, credit and reputation", had been "humiliated and embarrassed", and suffered loss and damage.
Two days after the interview, Mr Hall's lawyers wrote to Mr Hanson to seek an apology and retraction, and demanded the podcast be removed from 2CC's website.
Mr Hall's statement of claim said the Mr Hanson rejected those demands.
"The first defendant [Jeremy Hanson] did not and has not retracted his words or apologised," the claims said.
"The first defendant's solicitors asserted that the first defendant's words were completely defensible and that the plaintiff's claim is frivolous, not genuine, and constituted contempt against a House of Parliament."
In his defence, Mr Hanson argued his words had been taken out of context and the comments should be read in the context of the entire interview.
He said the comments had not been defamatory and did not carry the imputations alleged by the union boss.
Court documents said the defence case also relied upon contextual truth, in that the comments also carried other imputations that were true and did not harm Mr Hall's reputation.
