Opposition Leader Peter Dutton may not have to pay costs in his unsuccessful defamation case against a refugee advocate after his lawyers told a Sydney court that “dummy invoices” could have been the basis for assessing the cost of the trial.
Key points:
- Dutton sued Bazzi over a tweet that called him a “rape apologist.”
- Bazzi was ordered to pay Mr. Dutton $35,000 in damages
- The decision was overturned in May
Dutton sued Shane Bazzi over a single tweet published in February 2021, which described him as “a rape apologist” and linked to a media article containing earlier comments he made about women on Nauru.
Mr. Bazzi was initially ordered to pay Mr. Dutton $35,000 in damages, but that was overturned on appeal in May.
The two are disputing whether Mr Dutton should pay costs after Bazzi funded part of his defence.
The Federal Court heard an affidavit submitted yesterday by Mr Bazzi’s legal team referred to a bill from his lawyers in December for about $233,000, which was the basis for assessing the cost of the trial.
But Dutton’s barrister, Guy Reynolds SC, said another bill from October was for $155,510.02, “the exact amount of the crowdfunding”.
A judge previously found Shane Bazzi had defamed Mr Dutton in a six-word tweet. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)
The affidavit also mentioned a “discount” of about $50,000, the court heard.
“If, and I’m just speaking theoretically here, it could be the case that the invoices that have been submitted for assessment are sham invoices, with the possibility that other invoices are also shams,” Reynolds said.
“The real position may be that under the agreement between the lawyers and Mr. Bazzi, Mr. Bazzi was never responsible for anything.
“Rather, the deal was that whatever came through the crowdfunding was what the lawyers would get, I’ll say neutrally.”
Reynolds argued for an adjournment, saying the matter should be investigated to discover the facts and the nature of any settlement.
He said he might have to cross-examine Mr.’s lawyer. Bazzi and the same Mr. Bazzi and could end up asking the court to order that Mr. Dutton does not pay any costs.
Solicitor Barry Dean, representing Mr Bazzi, said the matters were not important enough to warrant an adjournment and that the recent affidavit “corrects” earlier documents.
He stated that when a person had money in trust, had raised it themselves, and had a bill, even a limited bill, it was still a liability.
“This is a liability that comes at a cost,” he said.
“It’s been described as a windfall, but really what it would be is a refund of funds that were spent, or in the case of the appeal, haven’t been spent yet.”
Justices Steven Rares, Darryl Rangiah and Michael Wigney granted the adjournment and the case will return to court in November.