0/5

TEN fails to prevent John Stephens from working at Seven, but wait there’s more…

Veteran programmer will remain with Seven ....unless TEN pursues further legal action.

TEN logoThe legal case between Seven and TEN over veteran programmer John Stephens, has seen TEN’s application for an injunction to prevent him continuing to work for Seven fail.

But Supreme Court judge Judge Stevenson ruled that his contract with TEN remains “on foot.”

Judge Stevenson said  whether Stephens contract with TEN is enforceable is a question be best considered “if and when TEN seeks to take further action under it”.

“TEN is entitled to a declaration that the TEN agreement remains on foot,” he said. “Otherwise, it is not entitled to the relief it seeks. Its claim should otherwise be dismissed.”

TEN had poached Stephens for a part time role as Director of Scheduling and Acquisitions but he later claimed he agreed to the contract whilst under medication following surgery.

The ruling has, uniquely, resulted in both networks claiming victories of sorts.

Seven statement:

Seven welcomes the finding that Mr Stephens did not breach an agreement, and accordingly that Seven did not – as Ten claimed – induce Mr Stephens to breach an agreement.

Ten’s claims were dismissed. The Court specifically said that it did not take Ten’s “extraordinary” attempt to in effect purchase an injunction into account.

We are pleased that this annoying attempt at distraction by Ten is concluded. We are pleased that Mr Stephens is able to continue to work for Seven and not take up the generous offer from Ten to be paid for two years to do nothing. This offer undoubtedly would have set a new precedent for our industry.

John Stephens commented: “The past few weeks have been a chapter in my life I could have certainly lived without and perhaps both Ten and Seven feel the same way. It is disappointing the situation had to progress all the way to the Supreme Court, but I guess that is part of the competitive nature of our business. Regardless, I am relieved the legal stoush is now done and dusted and I can now concentrate more fully on my consultancy role with Seven. I have been a part of a great team and its success over the past decade and I am looking forward to continuing to be a part of this team.”

TEN statement:

Network Ten Chief Executive Officer, Hamish McLennan, said: “The ruling that Mr Stephens’ contract with Ten remains on foot vindicates our position. The court has found that our contract is valid and binding.

“We stated from the outset that our aim was to get to the truth of what happened after Mr Stephens signed a contract with our company.”

Justice Stevenson found that Mr Stephens was labouring under no disability when he signed the Network Ten agreement and further, that Seven applied pressure, procuration and persuasion to Mr Stephens to walk away from the agreement.

The court hearing revealed that the painkiller defense was concocted and laughable, as Network Ten always suspected. As Mr Stephens said in an email to Seven’s Bruce
McWilliam, he was not on painkillers at the time he signed the agreement with Network Ten.

Justice Stevenson added that in his opinion, Mr Stephens would not have acted as he did, absent Seven’s conduct.

The ugly legal battle saw TEN CEO Hamish McLennan reveal a number of high-level negotiations including that the information had been kept secret from Programming Chief Beverley McGarvey while Seven emails revealed refused to believe Stephens was switching sides.

7 Responses

  1. So no free set of steak knives? How disappointing. 😉

    I’ll leave the serious comments to others although I don’t get why Ten went to court.

  2. @Pertinax. Point noted (assuming they make a profit).

    However, how does one value the – reputation damage, distraction to the broader business and general mistrust of management (as evidenced by the issued and conduct presented in the Affidavits and Testimony by the Executive ?).

  3. @George 100
    Ten hires lawyers to do all this work. How much it costs Ten will depend of the settlement for costs, but it is a deductible expense (assuming Ten makes a profit and has to pay tax).

    If Stephen’s argument that the contract is invalid due to incapacity to enter in the agreement, then they can recover damages from him.

  4. As Peter Meakin says “revenue is down the toilet” and we all see a very public expensive stoush by Ten.

    Ten has spent days preparing, attending and analyising this case – that was always going to fail.

    In the process – they have aired their dirty cover ups, cost the company millions in legal fees and pissed off the programming team. sorry – also entertained the market on their incompetence.

    Hit a home run boys !

Leave a Reply