Arnold Bloch, legal group fail to get infamous Luke Sayers explicit photo case held behind closed doors
A defamation dispute between estranged couple Luke and Cate Sayers will be played out in full public view after Victoria's Supreme Court has rejected a bid to have the case transferred to a private family law jurisdiction.
Justice Andrew Watson ruled this week that the Supreme Court of Victoria — not the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — was the appropriate venue to hear the case, which stems from allegations arising out of a lewd photo posted to Mr Sayers' X account in January last year.
The decision is a significant procedural win for Cate Sayers, who launched proceedings against her estranged husband earlier this year. She alleges he defamed her in a statutory declaration provided to the AFL Integrity Unit during its investigation into the incident.
The case has drawn two of Australia's most prominent defamation barristers. Cate Sayers is represented by Sue Chrysanthou SC, one of the country's best-known defamation practitioners. Luke Sayers is represented by Dr Matt Collins KC, who argued the case should be transferred to the Family Court, where proceedings are heard in private.
Dr Collins told the court last month that the publicity surrounding the case had been "salacious" and "tabloid in the very worst sense of that word." He submitted that the matter would turn heavily on witness credibility, with both parties facing rigorous cross-examination.
Justice Watson was unmoved. The Family Court's strict provisions on publication of proceedings, he found, "sit at odds with the vindication function that a defamation trial would ordinarily serve." He noted that defamation proceedings have been heard in the Supreme Court since 1856 — four years after the court's establishment — and that such matters have "rarely, if ever" been conducted in conjunction with family law proceedings.
In a partial setback for Ms Sayers, Justice Watson also rejected her application for a jury trial. Her legal team had argued she was seeking "to obtain vindication and to restore her reputation." The judge found she had provided no sufficient positive basis for the exercise of his discretion to order a jury, directing that the matter proceed before a judge alone.
A judge-only trial is expected to be scheduled for November.
Court documents also reveal that Melbourne solicitor Leon Zwier of Arnold Bloch Leibler is acting for Mr Sayers in the proceedings. Mr Zwier also played a role in responding to the AFL probe that preceded the litigation, according to reporting by The Australian.
Background
The proceedings arise from a statutory declaration Mr Sayers swore in the weeks following the X post. Ms Sayers alleges the declaration contained false and defamatory imputations about her, and disclosed private information including details about her health, sexual history and personal circumstances. She also alleges she was denied any opportunity to respond to the AFL's investigation.
Mr Sayers has denied the central allegations against him and applied to resolve the dispute in a private forum. His unsuccessful application to transfer the case to the Family Court was seen by observers as a strategic effort to limit the public airing of the parties' personal affairs in a matter that has already attracted significant media coverage in AFL-connected Melbourne.
The AFL's own inquiry concluded that Mr Sayers' X account had been compromised at the time the image was posted, and cleared him of breaching AFL rules.
The November trial date is expected to attract considerable public interest.
This article is based on court documents, published judgments and reporting by The Australian and ABC News. Nothing in this article is intended to convey any finding of fact in the proceedings. All allegations referred to are as pleaded or argued; none has been proven at trial.
