The ABC investigative journalist Louise Milligan has agreed to pay Andrew Laming $79,000 plus legal costs for a series of tweets in which she suggested the federal Liberal MP had taken a photo of a woman “under her skirt”.
After a defamation claim was lodged against Milligan in June, on Wednesday the federal court heard the parties had agreed to a settlement which would add the payout to the long list of apologies already received by the MP from a slew of high-profile politicians and media figures.
Justice Anna Katzmann ordered a consent judgment in favour of Laming, after the ABC journalist also removed the tweet at the centre of the dispute.
For months lawyers for Laming have been busy issuing legal notices over tweets and comments made in the wake of accusations from a 29-year-old woman that he took a photo of her while she was bent over, exposing her underwear at the top of denim shorts, while she completed an office task at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019.
Crystal White made a formal complaint to Queensland police, who cleared Laming, determining there was “no evidence to indicate a criminal offence”.
In March Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt, claiming it was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace, “kneeling in an awkward position, and filling a fridge with an impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the fridge”.
“That was the subject of the photograph, it was completely dignified,” he told ABC Radio at the time.
Guardian Australia has previously reported that Laming has secured apologies from the Greens senator Sarah-Hanson Young, the Labor senator Murray Watt, the former Victorian senator Derryn Hinch, the News Corp Australia journalist Eliza Barr and the Queensland Labor party state MP Don Brown.
The notices chiefly relate to the characterisation of the episode as “upskirting”, an offence under the Queensland criminal code and something Laming has vehemently denied.
Milligan received a concerns notice in May which instructed her to delete the tweets and contained the wording of an apology to be issued to the MP.
While she deleted the tweets, the ABC journalist did not apologise and instead issued a statement on the site in June in which she said it had not been an “upskirt” photo and detailed the MP’s denials.
Milligan also urged readers to read a “very comprehensive” ABC article that stated Laming would not be charged by police.
“Initial impressions circulated widely that this was an upskirt photo were incorrect because the woman was wearing shorts and she was alleging her underwear could be seen from the top of the shorts,” she wrote at the time.
That led Laming to file for defamation in the federal court, claiming Milligan had “gravely injured” the embattled MP’s “character and reputation” with the original “sensational, accusatory and spiteful” tweets, and saying the subsequent statement was “self-serving” and lacked an apology.
On Wednesday the federal court heard Laming had agreed to a settlement. In a statement issued through his lawyer, Rebekah Giles, Laming said he had been subjected to “harassment and character assassination”.
“My case is an example of how a false allegation can be quickly and widely disseminated over social media by persons who have no direct/personal knowledge of what actually happened,” he said.
“It is regrettable that so many people including so called investigative journalists, media personalities and political identities use social media to make unwarranted attacks of this nature.
“No one should be subjected to this type of harassment and character assassination without recourse and the defamation laws are important to achieve that end.”
In court on Wednesday the two parties remained at loggerheads over both the costs of the matter and an admission of liability from Milligan.
Renée Enbom QC, appearing on behalf of Milligan, asked that Katzmann limit the costs order to matters up to the agreement of compromise, saying it was unnecessary for Laming to have briefed senior counsel Sue Chrysanthou for Wednesday’s appearance.
She also asked for a notation to be added to the consent orders to “ensure the order accurately reflects the basis on which the orders have been made”, saying it should be noted that “there hasn’t been a determination on the merits of the case” and saying that despite the settlement that Milligan “has not admitted liability in anyway”.
Chrysanthou disputed that, saying the request was “bizarre and unnecessary”.
“She is liable via judgment of $79,000 and a costs order,” she said.
“If my learned friend thinks [that] her client has not admitted liability that is incorrect and that misconception should be corrected now.”
Katzmann agreed to a notation saying, “To the effect that the orders are made following the acceptance by your client of the applicant’s offer of compromise.”
It remains unclear who will pay Laming. In June Guardian Australia confirmed that the public broadcaster intended to pay Milligan’s legal costs, prompting the Liberal senator James McGrath to write to the ABC chair, Ita Buttrose, asking why the broadcaster was paying for what he described as tweets issued “not in a work capacity”.
“As the action relates to tweets issued by Ms Milligan not in a work capacity (as Ms Milligan has admitted) how can you justify this to the taxpayer?” he wrote in a letter that he then posted on Twitter.
Laming has sought to backtrack on previous apologies issued after he was ordered by Scott Morrison to attend empathy training after he was accused of online harassment and abuse by two women.
The prime minister has previously described Laming’s online behaviour as disgraceful and the Bowman MP has been blocked from running for re-election as a Liberal.
Laming initially apologised for his behaviour before revealing he’d been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and attributing some of his behaviour to that.
He later laughed the apology off, saying he “didn’t even know” what he was apologising for when he spoke in parliament.
