³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾

Sydney, Australia (12 October 2020): Channel Ten has been ordered to publish a clarification more prominently, and to pay indemnity legal costs, after the network was found to have acted in bad faith. Justice Anna Katzmann said that the Network had published the agreed clarification in an obscure location, “in a manner that was calculated to frustrate or undermine its purpose”, and in so doing, “Ten breached the Agreement”.

Sally Webber, Senior Solicitor at Atkinson Vinden Lawyers (www.avlawyers.com.au) , lawyers for the applicant Dylan Hafertepen, said that verdict was “the best possible outcome” for her client, who had suffered significant reputational harm since the program aired.

In November 2018, Channel Ten’s The Project aired the story, “Report into the suspicious death of Australian man Jack Chapman” an account of the relationship between Mr Hafertepen and his late partner Jack “Tank” Chapman. . In 2019, Mr Hafertepen commenced defamation proceedings against Channel Ten, alleging that The Project imputed, amongst other things, that Mr Hafertepen was responsible for Mr Chapman’s death.

“This is the best outcome for Mr Hafertepen, now he can move forward and focus on repairing the damage to his reputation here in Australia and internationally as a result of the broadcast on The Project.” Ms Webber said.

The defamation proceedings against Channel Ten were settled in April 2020 following a mediation. As part of the terms of settlement, Channel Ten agreed to pay a capped contribution to Mr Hafertepen’s legal costs, provide him with a private letter of apology, send clarification letters to certain members of the global press who had reported the story and post a clarification on the Channel Ten 10play website for a period of 14 days.

Mr Hafertepen subsequently filed an interlocutory application in Court alleging that Channel Ten had failed to properly comply with the terms of the settlement, in particular in relation to its posting of the clarification on the 10play website. Channel Ten posted the clarification at the very bottom of the Terms of Use page which meant that, according to Mr Hafertepen, it was extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for it to come to the attention of any viewers of the original story on The Project. Mr Hafertepen argued that Channel Ten had acted in bad faith by choosing this particular web page to publish the clarification, with the intention being to deliberately bury the clarification.

Throughout the proceedings, Network Ten denied that it had acted in bad faith.