New South Wales’ powerful club lobby sent a legal letter telling YouTuber Friendlyjordies to immediately remove an interview with whistleblower and cancer sufferer Troy Stolz, warning of the potential for “imprisonment and fines” and saying any refusal to delete the video would only make “matters worse for Mr Stolz”.
Earlier this month, Friendlyjordies published a video featuring an interview between the channel’s producer Kristo Langker and Stolz, who blew the whistle in 2020 on what he alleged was the widespread failure of the clubs sector to comply with laws designed to stop money laundering through the state’s pokies.
Stolz, a former ClubsNSW employee, is now facing a civil case brought by his former employer alleging a breach of confidentiality and intellectual property.
The federal court in November restrained Stolz from making public statements that are calculated to “intimidate, harass, or otherwise bring improper pressure” on ClubsNSW in relation to the case.
The court also warned others may be punished for helping Stolz to breach the order.
On Tuesday, ClubsNSW’s lawyers Thomson Geer wrote to Jordan Shanks-Markovina, known as Friendlyjordies, warning him the video was “making matters worse for Mr Stolz”.
The letter said the video “refers directly to orders made by the federal court … and indeed [in] breach of the court order”.
“A breach of such a Court Order constitutes a contempt of Court,” it warned. “Such contraventions are very serious and can result in grave consequences, including imprisonment and fines (including for those who are found to assist in the wrongful conduct).
“By continuing to publish the Video you are making matters worse for Mr Stolz. If you purport to care about the interests of Mr Stolz, we ask that you immediately stop publishing the Video.”
Shanks-Markovina was given 24 hours to say whether the video would be removed.
YouTube has since removed the video, which was filmed in a Newcastle hospice room, where Stolz is being treated for cancer.
In an email, YouTube told Friendlyjordies that it had “received a court order regarding your content” and that the video had been blocked from view.
ClubsNSW said in a statement it had a duty to notify the federal court of a breach of its orders. It also noted that Stolz, who has not raised a whistleblower defence in the federal court case, was “not a whistleblower recognised at law”.
“Last year, Justice Yates found it ‘clearly arguable that Mr Stolz’s conduct has had, and if continued is likely to have, the real, clear, and definite tendency to interfere with the course of justice in this case’,” a spokesperson said.
“Justice Yates granted orders restraining Mr Stolz from ‘publishing or causing to be published’ to non-parties ‘statements about [ClubsNSW’s], or its legal representatives’, conduct of the proceeding, which are calculated to intimidate, harass or otherwise bring improper pressure on the applicant (including its officers, employees or agents) in respect of the conduct of this proceeding’ until further order.
“The interview recorded with Mr Stolz by FriendlyJordies, by Mr Stolz’s own admission, was a clear breach of that order. As a party to these proceedings, ClubsNSW has a duty to notify the Court of this breach of the Court’s orders.”
Last year, ClubsNSW told the federal court that Stolz should be restrained from commentary about the case.
The clubs’ lobby said it was victim to an “oppressive” public campaign waged by Stolz in the media, which it said was designed to imply that it was suing Stolz as retribution for him blowing the whistle. It said the campaign was “inflammatory and frankly misleading”.
Stolz’s lawyers argued his commentary in public had not interfered with the administration of justice in any way. They argued ClubsNSW was motivated only by a desire to avoid criticism.
Justice David Yates found against Stolz, ordering he be restrained from saying anything about the conduct of ClubsNSW that aimed to “intimidate, harass, or otherwise bring improper pressure on the respondent” in relation to the legal proceedings.
In handing down the ruling, Yates said the orders did not stop the applicant from speaking publicly about the case, but warned Stolz he would need to “tread carefully”.
“For its compliance, the injunction the applicant seeks does no more than call for the exercise of the judgment which must be exercised in any event if, for example, one wishes to take the step of commenting publicly on the course of litigation or on the conduct of a party in, or in respect of, that litigation,” he said. “If this is the path that Mr Stolz chooses to take, there is no restraint on him doing so.
“But, if he wishes to continue on that path, he must tread carefully.”
