Overview
- The Full Court heard closing submissions on Wednesday and reserved its decision, with judgment to be delivered at a later date.
- Latham’s counsel argued the tweet was part of political cut-and-thrust, did not carry the meaning found at trial, and failed the serious-harm requirement.
- His team also sought to rely on qualified privilege and honest opinion, defences the trial judge had rejected.
- Greenwich filed a cross-appeal seeking a finding that the post impugned his fitness for office and an increase above the $140,000 in damages.
- The 2023 tweet triggered hostile messages to Greenwich’s office and a police complaint, and the case has contributed to costs above $500,000 and Latham’s removal as One Nation’s parliamentary leader.