Lawyers for an ACT union boss have launched a fresh attack on the legal defence brought by the former Canberra Liberals leader in a defamation case set for a Supreme Court showdown.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
ACT CFMEU secretary Dean Hall is suing Jeremy Hanson for allegedly defamatory comments he made in a talkback radio interview last year.
The comments were made when Mr Hanson appeared on 2CC Canberra last March to discuss an agreement between UnionsACT and the ACT government that gave unions a role in procurement decisions.
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?"
He launched civil action against both 2CC and Mr Hanson in the ACT Supreme Court last June.
The station settled soon after, but Mr Hall continued his case against Mr Hanson.
He alleged Mr Hanson's remarks implied Mr Hall was so untrustworthy or dishonest he should not be given access to government tender documents, as he had either been convicted of, or was facing, criminal charges.
Mr Hall has been convicted only of drink driving more than a decade ago.
His claim said the remarks injured Mr Hall's reputation and he suffered loss and damage.
In his defence, Mr Hanson argued the comments had not been defamatory and did not carry the imputations the union boss alleged.
Mr Hanson was given permission to file an amended legal defence in August, after Mr Hall's lawyers argued the latest of his two main defences was "defective" and unlikely to succeed.
The case returned to court on Monday, when lawyers for Mr Hall launched another application for parts of Mr Hanson's latest legal defence, filed in September, to also be struck out.
Mr Hall's lawyer said Mr Hanson's defence pointed to his client's involvement in industrial action between 2013 and 2015 to argue he was untrustworthy and dishonest, rather than any allegation he faced or had been convicted of criminal charges.
The lawyer also attacked Mr Hanson's claim he was protected by qualified privilege, arguing many of the radio station's listeners, such as children and residents outside the ACT, would not have been eligible to vote in last year's election.
Lawyers for Mr Hanson said the majority of listeners would have been ACT residents who were entitled to vote.
Mr Hall's lawyers did not take issue with details of a third part of Mr Hanson's defence, also related to qualified privilege, which they said would be argued at trial. A date has yet to be set.
The court previously heard Mr Hanson had been indemnified by the ACT taxpayer, and it could foot the bill for a potential court hearing stretching up to 15 days.
Justice David Mossop reserved his decision.
