Overview
- A full bench of the Federal Court began a three-day hearing in Sydney, with Justices Craig Colvin, Michael Wheelahan and Wendy Abraham presiding.
- Latham’s counsel argued the tweet was part of electoral cut and thrust, a proportionate tu quoque response, did not convey the meaning found at trial, and caused no serious harm.
- His legal team also said he could, if needed, rely on qualified privilege and honest opinion, defences the trial judge rejected.
- Greenwich’s lawyers said the post targeted presumed private sexual activity, urged the court to reject any political-debate justification, and sought a higher award plus an added meaning about fitness for office.
- The trial judge previously awarded $140,000 in damages, with reported costs lifting exposure above $500,000, and the appeal outcome remains pending.