The case of Antoinette Lattouf v the ABC is finally done.
What began as a casual fill-in gig for Lattouf – hired to be a presenter for five days in the downward run into the Christmas period in 2023 – has turned into a sprawling, million-dollar unlawful termination case splashed across every news outlet for weeks.
One cannot imagine there has ever been a week-long casual presenting job at the ABC that has ever attracted this much attention or cost the national broadcaster so much.
The agreed facts are these: Lattouf was hired as a fill-in presenter on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program in December 2023. Three days in to a five-day contract, after ABC management had received multiple coordinated complaints about Lattouf’s presence on air, the ABC was alerted to a post of Lattouf’s on Instagram about the war in Gaza. Lattouf was asked by management to pack her things and leave and informed that her services would not be required for the rest of the week.
Why this happened, and whether the ABC broke any laws in doing what it did, is what has been at issue over nearly two weeks of this case, which concluded before the federal court in Sydney on Friday.
The financial costs of it all were revealed this week when the ABC told Senate estimates it had spent $1.1m on external legal representation to defend the case.
Lattouf has indicated that her legal fees approach the million-dollar mark as well, posting on Instagram that the money raised from a Go Fund Me for her legal costs “accounts for about a quarter of the cost of this litigation”. At the time, the fundraiser had received about $180,000 in donations.
‘There were days I could barely get out of bed’
But the emotional costs were also on display on Friday afternoon.
At the end of proceedings, Lattouf addressed the media, speaking publicly for the first time since her case against the ABC began, her hands shaking violently.
The journalist made it through several minutes of her speech before her composure cracked.
“I could not have done this alone. There were days I could barely get out of bed. The public’s unwavering support kept me standing,” she said, pausing while tears came.
“From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. You gave me strength when I felt that I was drowning from the weight of this.”
There was drama in the courtroom, even on the last day, as the ABC’s barrister, Ian Neil SC, presented his closing arguments.
Neil told Justice Darryl Rangiah that if the judge should find that the ABC had broken the law in the handling of Lattouf’s employment that “the compensation should be no more than modest”, disputing her claim for compensation due to emotional distress.
He conceded that the ABC’s conduct towards Lattouf “caused her distress and was a negative consequence”, but said “a reasonable person wouldn’t predict that Ms Lattouf being removed from the air in the circumstances would cause her distress”.
Lattouf sat through this exchange, head bowed, eyes closed, shaking her head.
Oshie Fagir, Lattouf’s barrister, strongly disagreed. She said on Friday that the ABC had defended the case in such an “objectionable” way – including in the personal matters on which Lattouf was cross-examined by the ABC – that he would seek additional compensation if his client was successful.
One part of Neil’s closing argument had Lattouf’s side of the courtroom rippling with apparently furious energy; Lattouf standing up to walk to her solicitor and whisper to him.
The ABC has claimed throughout this case that Lattouf was not sacked from her role, merely asked not to present the final two shows, something Neil argued it was contractually allowed to do. He also disputed that taking Lattouf off air was meant as a sanction.
‘We’re talking about two shifts’
“Taking someone off air is designed to protect the ABC, not to punish the employee,” he said.
“It may be both,” suggested Rangiah.
“But in this case, it was only the first,” said Neil. “Literally, no one ever talks about punishing her, or sanctioning her … And what is the punishment, we ask rhetorically. You don’t have to do work, but you get paid for it? We always have the right to tell you not to do any work; we’re telling you not to do any work. Are we punishing you? Are we disciplining you? Are we taking money off you?”
Rangiah pressed him: “So if an employee is suspended from their employment and still paid for it, that’s not an adverse consequence for them?”
“It would depend on the circumstances,” said Neil. “But here we’re talking about two shifts, two programs.”
Lattouf told the press pack at the conclusion of proceedings it was never about two missed shifts.
“This case was never just about me, it was never about five days of work, it was about protecting the principles that should matter to all of us.”
Rangiah has retired to deliberate, and it will probably be months before Lattouf, the ABC and the watching public, learn of his decision.
