Federal Court Dismisses Contempt Bid Against Herald and Age in Lattouf Case

In a significant ruling on July 18, 2025, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed a legal bid by a group of pro-Israel letter-writers seeking to hold The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in contempt of court. The plaintiffs alleged that the newspapers violated a suppression order that protected the identities of individuals who had lodged complaints against Antoinette Lattouf, a former employee of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), during her unlawful termination suit.

The suppression order, issued by Justice Darryl Rangiah on February 3, 2025, aimed to maintain the anonymity of complainants, stating that public disclosure could lead to "vilification and harassment" of the individuals involved. The order was set for a duration of ten years and specifically protected the names, identities, contact details, and addresses of the complainants.

The case arose from four articles published by the media outlets prior to the issuance of the suppression order. Justice Rangiah noted that while the articles remained online after the order was established, they were amended in March 2025 to remove the names of the complainants, albeit without any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the publishers.

During the preliminary hearing in April, the plaintiffs' counsel, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, contended that the case warranted referral for contempt proceedings. However, Tom Blackburn, SC, representing the newspapers, argued that any such referral would be inappropriate, as the registrar would lack the discretion to decline the commencement of contempt proceedings.

In his judgment, Justice Rangiah determined that the contempt application lacked sufficient merit, stating that it would require considerable resources for the registrar to pursue a case of uncertain strength. He subsequently ordered the applicants to cover half the legal costs incurred by the media outlets. Nonetheless, he clarified that the letter-writers could still initiate their own contempt proceedings if they deemed it necessary.

Justice Rangiah further explained that the media parties presented a "reasonably arguable basis" for defending against the contempt allegations. He emphasized that the suppression order applied specifically to the nine complainants who sought it and that the media had not been notified of their identities, complicating claims of contempt.

In a related ruling last month, Justice Rangiah ordered the ABC to compensate Lattouf with $70,000 for wrongful termination, citing that her dismissal was influenced by pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists due to her public opposition to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. Further hearings regarding potential pecuniary penalties for the ABC are anticipated in the future.

This ruling highlights the ongoing tensions regarding media freedom and the protection of individuals' identities in sensitive legal matters. As debates around press ethics and legal accountability continue, the implications of this case may resonate within both legal and media communities in Australia and beyond.