Former sports presenter escapes paying Channel 9’s legal fees after losing unfair dismissal case

Former AFL player and Channel 9 sports presenter Warren Tredrea has yet again escaped covering his former employer’s legal fees after losing an unfair dismissal case based on his refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

Port Adelaide’s former premiership-winning captain, Warren Tredrea, was caught up in another legal battle with his former employer, Channel 9, over the order of costs pertaining to an unfair dismissal case that took place between the two parties.

Tredrea – who worked at Channel 9 as a sports presenter – brought an unfair dismissal case against the media organisation’s Adelaide-based channel, claiming his employment had been unfairly terminated for failing to adhere to the broadcaster’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

He ultimately lost the case based on the fact that Channel 9 had three grounds for the termination of his employment. The first was his failure to comply with the broadcaster’s COVID-19 vaccination regulations, his overall performance as a sports presenter, and finally, the reputation he garnered following numerous “inaccurate” comments on local radio about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Justice Geoffrey Kennett, who oversaw the unfair dismissal case, stated that Tredrea would have had a stronger case had his termination been primarily based on his refusal to adhere to the COVID-19 vaccination policy. However, the other factors deemed his dismissal fair. Originally, Tredrea was seeking $6 million in lost wages, which, of course, he was unable to recover.

Tredrea and his team attempted to raise new grounds on appeal upon the conclusion of the trial; however, the court found that “new issues should not be raised on appeal. The effect of that approach is, with respect, to treat the trial as a “practice run” for the appeal. It would be contrary to principle to permit this to occur.

At the conclusion of the trial, Justice Kennett considered making orders that Tredrea’s parties were to pay Channel 9’s costs of the proceeding. However, ultimately, Justice Kennett made an order that there be no order as to the costs of the proceeding.

The broadcaster disagreed with this decision and sought leave to appeal from the order of Justice Kennett, arguing that they offered Tredrea’s parties two differing settlements – of $50,000 and $120,000 – was an “unreasonable act or omission” that “caused Channel 9 to incur costs in connection with the proceeding”.

Channel 9’s argument in substance is that it was unreasonable for Tredrea’s parties not to accept the two settlement offers, alleging that an offer of $120,000 was generous and its non-acceptance was unreasonable when weighed against the difficulties of the Tredrea parties’ case.

Despite this insinuation, the Full Court found that Justice Kennett undertook “an orthodox weighing exercise” when considering whether the rejection of the settlement offers was reasonable. It was also found that at the time of the settlement offers, the Tredrea parties still had a chance to recover damages that could exceed the offers.

Overall, the court found that Justice Kennett’s reasoning and conclusions for not ordering Tredrea’s parties to cover Channel 9’s costs were sound.