Jordan Shanks, known as Friendlyjordies, and whistleblower Troy Stolz will face criminal contempt proceedings initiated by New South Wales’ powerful clubs lobby, which has been pursuing the pair in secret for more than a month.
The development represents a dramatic escalation in the bitter dispute between ClubsNSW and Stolz, a former employee now diagnosed with cancer, and potentially puts Stolz and Friendlyjordies at risk of criminal conviction and imprisonment.
Stolz and ClubsNSW have been locked in a protracted case before the federal court for more than two years over his alleged unlawful use of confidential information, including his decision to share details of the sector’s alleged non-compliance with anti-money laundering laws with journalists.
ClubsNSW convinced a court in November to restrain Stolz from speaking publicly about the case in any manner calculated to “intimidate, harass, or otherwise bring improper pressure” on it during the proceedings.
Two months ago, YouTuber Shanks published an interview between his producer, Kristo Langker, and Stolz, in which Stolz revealed he was being treated for cancer with a bleak prognosis.
The interview prompted ClubsNSW to write to Shanks, warning him he was in contempt of court.
The video, titled “The Legal way to take a life”, has since been removed by YouTube.
The clubs lobby is making an application to the federal court seeking contempt proceedings be brought against Stolz and Shanks.
It alleged that Shanks “knowingly assisted Mr Stolz to disobey and breach the November 2021 order and has, himself, published statements that scandalise the court and have a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice”.
The fact of that application was suppressed until Friday. The court made an interim suppression in late July, without the chance for Shanks or Stolz to argue against it. The interim order was to last until the application for suppression could be heard in full and decided upon by the court.
The court on Friday declined to make the suppression order.
“In expressing that conclusion, I do not wish to be taken as condoning, in any way, the publication by Mr Stolz and Mr Shanks-Markovina of the material about which ClubsNSW complains,” Justice Ian Yates said.
“Similarly, I do not wish to be taken as condoning the remarks that have been made by others on social media as a consequence of Mr Stolz’s or of Mr Shanks-Markovina’s conduct. The personal remarks that Mr Stolz made concerning [ClubsNSW’s lawyer] in her professional capacity are particularly unfortunate.
“Whether these remarks, and the other publications about which ClubsNSW complains, are a breach of the court’s orders, or are otherwise in contempt of court, are matters that will be determined in the fullness of time. I express no view on those questions at the present time.”
ClubsNSW had argued that publication of the fact that it was pursuing contempt proceedings against the pair could provide them with the “opportunity to escalate attacks against ClubsNSW and its legal representatives”.
“ClubsNSW says that Mr Stolz’s and Mr Shanks-Markovina’s conduct suggests that they have been goading it into bringing contempt proceedings so as to provide a springboard for them to generate further waves of publicity and social media activities which attack ClubsNSW and its legal representatives in relation to the bringing, and conduct, of these proceedings,” Yates said.
“ClubsNSW is concerned that bringing contempt proceedings against Mr Stolz and Mr Shanks-Markovina will provide Mr Stolz and Mr Shanks-Markovina with the opportunity to escalate attacks against ClubsNSW and its legal representatives.”
The initial proceedings were brought in April 2020. The statement of claim, the document which sets out ClubsNSW’s case, was filed in late August.
It alleges that Stolz used ClubsNSW’s confidential information for his own commercial gain, including for his own consultancy work, and to share information with a series of journalists.
It said Stolz, as an employee, owed it a duty of confidence. The documents, ClubsNSW alleges, were used for an improper purpose, namely to “cause determine [sic] to ClubsNSW, by tarnishing the public reputation of ClubsNSW and its member clubs through the public disclosure of confidential information about their alleged AML/CTF compliance”.
The statement of claim shows ClubsNSW is relying on a series of email exchanges Stolz had with individual journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, 60 Minutes, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Daily Telegraph in 2020.
Stolz has not yet filed any whistleblower defence in the case.
ClubsNSW declined to comment.
Lawyer Mark Davis, who is acting for Shanks and Stolz, welcomed the decision to lift the suppression order.
“It is remarkable that a private company like ClubsNSW can initiate criminal proceedings and hope to keep those proceedings entirely secret,” he said.
“This is a very rare process where a private company effectively takes the place of a state prosecutor.”
