The Seven Network has alleged that 13 more women came forward with complaints about the conduct of Robert Ovadia since the senior reporter was sacked in late June, the federal court has heard.
In documents filed in the court late on Thursday, Ovadia’s lawyers argued their client’s conduct did not amount to sexual harassment or serious misconduct and alleged he was unlawfully sacked.
Ovadia was accused of creating edited photos and a caricature of “Person A” and sending them to that person, an act which did not constitute sexual harassment, the documents claimed.
He also allegedly sent a photo copied from the internet of a flaccid penis to “Person B” which was not of a sexual nature and did not amount to sexual harassment, the documents further claimed.
“No reasonable employer could have formed form the view that the conduct amounted to sexual harassment, the photo was not conduct of a sexual nature,” the statement of claim said.
The veteran Sydney reporter was stood down in June while Seven conducted an internal investigation into allegations of “inappropriate behaviour”.
Two weeks later the 51-year-old was sacked, and he said the allegations were “malicious”.
“Yes I’ve been sacked and there will be more to say about that in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time,” Ovadia told Guardian Australia at the time.
Ovadia has maintained the allegations are false and hired workplace lawyer John Laxon of Sydney’s Laxon Lex Lawyers to represent him.
He filed a wrongful dismissal claim against the Seven Network and Seven West Media’s news and editor-in-chief, Anthony De Ceglie.
At the first case management hearing on Thursday, counsel for Seven, Vanja Bulut, said the defendants had email evidence of complaints about Ovadia’s conduct from another 13 women.
“Subsequent to the applicant’s dismissal, 13 more females have come forward with complaints in relation to his conduct, and they’re now subject to investigation,” Bulut told federal court justice Elizabeth Raper.
“The applicant has been put on notice of that. That is, my instructors have written to our learned friend’s instructors, setting out the additional allegations that have come to light subsequent to the dismissal and to the extent that those allegations are recorded in documents.”
Bulut said the conduct that had come to light “does provide a basis to summarily terminate” and Seven will rely on the additional allegations to defend its case.
Barrister Andrew Gotting, for Ovadia, argued his client had been sent some information, but it had been redacted and lacked detail.
“That redaction has occurred without the consent of the applicant,” Gotting said. “There is much material that is being relied upon, apparently for the purpose of resisting a contractual claim, that has not been provided to the applicant.”
Gotting asked the court to order that Seven file its evidence first. “Where there are allegations of serious misconduct, the onus falls on the employer,” he said. Raper denied that request.
Bulut opposed Ovadia’s request for mediation, saying Seven “sees no benefit in the mediation”.
But Raper ordered the parties to attend mediation at a date to be determined in October before a judicial registrar and said they must all attend in person. An earlier Fair Work Commission mediation, which failed, was conducted by video link.
If successful, the mediation may result in the case being settled before trial.
Raper ordered that the respondents file and serve their defences to the statement of claim by 12 September and the applicant to file and serve any reply by 12 October.
The proceedings have been listed for case management on 10 February 2025.
After the hearing, Ovadia told Guardian Australia: “The claims are baseless and Seven has never provided evidence despite repeated requests. Even today, no evidence to support any of this – just a dirty tactic and headline to bully me away from defending myself.”
