rush has won his case against the telephraph and is now seeking compensation in the form of a large payout.

The me too movement is now concerned about the impacts this case have on their movement. Why ?

The federal court has just found the story defamatory. Does the me too movement expect to have their way with untried or ingested allegations against their “members” ?

The case has parallels with the Rebel Wilson case where courts now do not look to loss to decide defamation but rather they are looking to the defamation on the face of it and you do not have to suffer loss or prove that you have suffered loss as was the case with Wilson.  Rush has a judgement that he was defamed by the paper. I suspect the court will receive an application for the loss of income aspects (if there is one) shortly and the judge will need to decide on that too.

IMHO the title King Leer rather than King Lear was in itself defamatory.

I'm waiting for the Daily Telegraph to run their apology on the front page with a colour photograph, as they did with the defamation.

I wonder where the report of the compensation payments will appear.

Peter

The apology will be on page 12, three lines, tucked away in a corner!

While this is a crappy decision for everyone, I reckon one clear message has gone out to the entertainment industry: "hands off" ... Craig McLaughlin included.

While this is a crappy decision for everyone, I reckon one clear message has gone out to the entertainment industry: "hands off" ... Craig McLaughlin included.

Why is it a crappy decision? The guy was clearly defamed. The $800K odd is just the start of the payments the DT will have to stump up. About time the filthy rag was taken to task. And no such message was sent out as the complainant was found to be unreliable. Court speak for being unbelievable.

Now the so called complainant appears to be back peddling saying she did not want things to go so far as a court case and an apology would have sufficed. If that is the case who pushed for the court case in the first place and was it just a good story until it blew up in the DT's face?

The one thing that has always puzzled me about this case, is why Ms Norvill was prepared to give evidence in defence of the DT?

If the version of events as described in her evidence was inaccurate or an embellishment (as the court found), why did she do it?  

And if the version of events she gave in her evidence was completely accurate and entirely dis-embellished, why would she do it?

Whatever the truth of this matter, there was never any upside for Ms Norvill to give evidence.

The only possible reason I can think of is either:
a) she was paid (unlikely)
b) she was got at (more likely) ie "if you don't help us out at the DT, we'll do an even bigger number on you than we just did on Rush".

Norvill did not bring the matter to the police, has made no attempt to achieve compensation through the courts (though I guess that might be different has this case gone the other way), and indeed did not bring the matter to the attention of the press herself.

Everyone involved in this case has come out of it more than a little tarnished, with the possible exception of NewCorp and Murdoch: who's reputation for ruthlessness has only been enhanced.  They clearly believe they should be able to say whatever they like, as loud as they like, about whoever they like, whenever they like - truth be buggered.  And they are prepared to throw as much money away as needed, and destroy as many people as necessary, to achieve this end.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever miserable fate awaits Assange, Murdoch & co deserve it more.

The one thing that has always puzzled me about this case, is why Ms Norvill was prepared to give evidence in defence of the DT?

If the version of events as described in her evidence was inaccurate or an embellishment (as the court found), why did she do it?  

And if the version of events she gave in her evidence was completely accurate and entirely dis-embellished, why would she do it?

Whatever the truth of this matter, there was never any upside for Ms Norvill to give evidence.

The only possible reason I can think of is either:
a) she was paid (unlikely)
b) she was got at (more likely) ie "if you don't help us out at the DT, we'll do an even bigger number on you than we just did on Rush".

Norvill did not bring the matter to the police, has made no attempt to achieve compensation through the courts (though I guess that might be different has this case gone the other way), and indeed did not bring the matter to the attention of the press herself.

Everyone involved in this case has come out of it more than a little tarnished, with the possible exception of NewCorp and Murdoch: who's reputation for ruthlessness has only been enhanced.  They clearly believe they should be able to say whatever they like, as loud as they like, about whoever they like, whenever they like - truth be buggered.  And they are prepared to throw as much money away as needed, and destroy as many people as necessary, to achieve this end.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever miserable fate awaits Assange, Murdoch & co deserve it more.

Ultimately, Ms Novill, may not have had a choice to appear. She could have been subpoenaed  if she decided to decline to appear.

I think the theatre involved has a lot to answer for. DT claimed that their source ws from there and it wasn't Ms Novill. All she wanted was to raise a complaint in confidence. So someone blabbed to make a name for them or the theatre and in doing so damaged both Mr Rush and Ms Novill.

It remind me when the complaints about Mr Joyce of the National Party by a person that did not want that publicly disclosed. Then some whiteant in the Nationals released it. In the end it makes it the issue play out in the public space. It showed that organisation has pathetic governace. The same about this theatre company. An opportunistic whiteant took two actors that should have been dealt with as a HR matter initially.

Now the so called complainant appears to be back peddling saying she did not want things to go so far as a court case and an apology would have sufficed. If that is the case who pushed for the court case in the first place and was it just a good story until it blew up in the DT's face?

Perhaps the complainant is now concerned about being held accountable for the information which was sent to the DT meaning any legal application for damages on behalf of Geoffery Rush might also include both her and the DT.  I would certainly be forecasting this.  

The application would make reference to a campaign to defame Rush with Malice and intent to cause harm to income.

Ultimately, Ms Novill, may not have had a choice to appear. She could have been subpoenaed  if she decided to decline to appear.

Theoretically I suppose.  But it's hard to see any court in a civil case issuing a subpoena to a 3rd party victim of sexual assault requiring them to come forward and give a public, detailed account of their experience.

Now the so called complainant appears to be back peddling saying she did not want things to go so far as a court case and an apology would have sufficed. If that is the case who pushed for the court case in the first place and was it just a good story until it blew up in the DT's face?
-nswtrains


Perhaps the complainant is now concerned about being held accountable for the information which was sent to the DT meaning any legal application for damages on behalf of Geoffery Rush might also include both her and the DT.  I would certainly be forecasting this.  

The application would make reference to a campaign to defame Rush with Malice and intent to cause harm to income.

you're being a bit rough on the poor girl, @bevans. Any linking of her good name to "malice" is very poor form.

Ms Norvill is NOT a defendant in the case, merely a witness.  A reluctant one at that, who gave her own account of the events.
Not accepted by the judge, but beside the point.

Daily Telegraph and Jonathan Moran are the defendants. They will pay hugely for :-

"This was, in all the circumstances, a recklessly irresponsible piece of sensationalist journalism of the worst kind,"

cheers
John

Ultimately, Ms Novill, may not have had a choice to appear. She could have been subpoenaed  if she decided to decline to appear.

Theoretically I suppose.  But it's hard to see any court in a civil case issuing a subpoena to a 3rd party victim of sexual assault requiring them to come forward and give a public, detailed account of their experience.

Ultimately she was a witness and DT needed her statement for their defence and unfortunately she would have been dragged in. Not unusual in a civil case surrounding defamation.

In most of these so called cases most are celebrities that are hauled into court, why because if they are found guilty the so called victim can get big money out of them. That I think is an abuse of the justice system but it does seem a pattern of late in these type of cases. Sure a lot might be true but then anyone could stump up and say So and So touched me inappropriately while filming or on stage etc.

One has to ask though she is an actress and what happens if the director says to her in your next play there is a love scene and you have to make it look real, what is she going to do, because the other person will have to touch her probably in places to make it look real. Otherwise we will go back to the Hollywood code that used to be about years ago and that fell by the wayside as well over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

It'll probably go the way of the Rebel Wilson outcome.
Rush will probably be awarded damages for being slandered by some Sbag paper.
Said paper will then put out some lame as F... sob story retraction buried in amoungst all their current crap about whatever in the world.
Said Sbag paper will then they appeal the decision smacking them financially for being Sbags in defaming Rush, and thus get the payout reduced.

Reinforcing the point (as with Wilsons) that you can say and defame whoever and pretty much get away with it.

Regards

Would feel frustrating to have allegations of this nature made against you. The woman has since said she never wanted it to come to this. A bit late now.