Lachlan Murdoch could well have won his Crikey lawsuit, so why did he drop it?
Late last week, Lachlan Murdoch dropped his defamation claim against key figures behind online publication Crikey. Murdoch had a strong case. So why would he choose to drop it?
Late last week, Lachlan Murdoch dropped his defamation claim against key figures behind online publication Crikey. Murdoch had a strong case. So why would he choose to drop it?
Read more:
Why Fox News' settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
The facts of the case
- His empire includes Fox News in the US and Sky News in Australia.
- Murdoch was suing over a June 2022 article on the subject of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.
- After the article was published, Murdoch sent the publishers of Crikey a “concerns notice”, essentially threatening to sue them.
- According to Murdoch, those behind Crikey used his defamation threat as part of marketing campaign to drive subscriptions.
Crikey’s defences may have failed
- Each of these defences relies on legal principles that excuse the publication of content that is defamatory for the sake of other important interests.
- Perhaps their strongest defence was a new one: a statutory defence of “publication of matter in the public interest”.
- There was a decent risk a court would have gone with the second option, and the defence would have failed.
- If the defences had have failed, Murdoch would have won.
The backdrop of the Dominion v Fox case
- Dominion Voting Systems had sued Fox in the US, seeking a whopping US$1.6 billion damages.
- There was plenty of ammo for Dominion to argue Fox was deliberately spreading lies about Dominion, which would have been required for Dominion to succeed.
- Just before the trial was about to start, Dominion agreed to put an end to the case in exchange for a US$787.5 million payment from Fox.
Discontinuing the defamation case was a sound decision
- If Lachlan Murdoch continued the Crikey case, then all of the dirty laundry that was to be aired in the Dominion case could have been aired in Australia.
- According to the principle of open justice, that evidence would have been heard in open court, with the global media watching.
There are other reasons Murdoch would want the case to end now
- This would mean the Crikey respondents failed in their reliance on the statutory defence of “publication of matter in the public interest”.
- Murdoch may end up having to pay the legal costs of the Crikey respondents.
- Read more:
Murdoch v Crikey highlights how Australia's defamation laws protect the rich and powerful