This article at the Financial Review, and not behind a paywall, describes the issues in the case and argues the settlement definitely was a capitulation by Porter.
I would also comment that the world of defamation lawyers seems particularly incestuous, even taking into account that the world of barristers and judges is routinely kinda incestuous.
I think that everyone now is curious about the additional redacted evidence that Porter wanted to keep out of the trial. Particularly from the guy who said he had a relevant conversation with Porter about his time with the deceased.
3 comments:
it is behind a paywall.
Interesting that the backdown came after what the ABC defence would be!!
Oh sorry. I got there via a twitter link. Sometimes those links get around the paywall.
The ABC had already collated material in a 4 Corners doco which involved Porter. That was probably heavily edited by legals. The rest would come out in court. When he saw the discoveries Porter knew even if he won the revelations would ruin him.
Post a Comment