Peter van Onselen’s explicit question to Network Ten bosses about Paamount CEO Beverley McGarvey

Former Project presenter Peter van Onselen claimed in court that he only agreed to leave Ten after asking bosses if he could still write about the channel ‘if the CEO hands out a goat’.

The channel’s ex-political editor is accused of violating a non-disparaging clause in the terms of his resignation he signed when he left the station in March.

But in the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday, he insisted that Paramount vice president of human resources Anthony McDonald said he would not be strictly bound by the act.

Dr. van Onselen – who appeared on Zoom during his family holiday in Italy – insisted he ran a screenplay past the company boss as a hypothetical example.

“I said if the CEO is handing out a goat and everyone was stacking Ten, couldn’t I stack too?” he said during cross-examination by Ten’s attorney, Arthur Moses.

Mr. McDonald is said to have replied, “Of course, mate, that sounds fair.”

During cross-examination under defense attorney Sue Chrysanthou, Mr McDonald denied that the conversation had taken place, but Dr Van Onselen insisted that it did.

Dr. van Onselen claims the act – which was part of an ex-gratia $71,000 payout deal with Ten after he resigned when they took up his position full-time in Canberra – was a trade restriction.

He claims that he would not be able to do his job as a political and media commentator and academic professor if he were bound to the act forever.

The legal row exploded after he wrote an article for his regular column in The Australian in which he paid attention to the fall in the share price of Paramount, Ten’s American parent company.

It was revealed in court that the article came about after a message to Dr. van Onselen from Ten’s news anchor Hugh Rimington, drawing his attention to the slide.

The article branded Ten a ‘minnow’ among Australian commercial channels and warned that a crash in the company’s stock could spell ‘disaster’ for the network.

Tien claims the article violated the non-disparaging clause and triggered legal action in the Supreme Court.

The network is represented by Mr Moses, the senior counsel who represented Ben Roberts-Smith in his failed defamation suit against Nine and the friend of former Prime Minister Gladys Berejiklian.

The court heard that Dr Van Onselen had a series of discussions with his lawyer about the terms of his severance package leading up to his departure on March 3.

He told the court he couldn’t follow the changes to the deal because he was on holiday in New Zealand at the time and couldn’t view the edits on his phone.

And he admitted that he signed the final contract without reading it completely.

“That’s up to me,” he admitted.

The channel’s ex-political editor is accused of violating a non-disparaging clause in the resignation terms he signed when he left the TV station in March (pictured, Dr van Onselen’s replacement Ashleigh Raper)

It was revealed in court that the article came about after a message to Dr. van Onselen from Ten’s newsreader Hugh Rimington (pictured), drawing his attention to the slide

But he said he interpreted the terms of the non-disparagement contract as mutual and related only to his time when he was employed by Ten and not binding forever.

He said the terms of the deal as he understood it related to his time working there and in connection with the lawsuit against Ten by Canberra reporter Tegan George.

Dr. van Onselen was named in the lawsuit alleging that the Canberra office was a “toxic” workplace.

His high-profile lawyer, Ms Chrysanthou SC, argued that the non-disparaging clause was presumptuous.

She said the commentator would technically be in contempt of court if he was dissatisfied with his streaming service Paramount+ and wrote an email of complaint to the company.

“It’s an offense for him to say to his friends in the pub, ‘I’m surprised Network Ten bought that programme, it’s not a good programme,'” Ms Chrysanthou told the NSW High Court on Thursday.

“It is a lifelong injunction against a person whose profession it is to talk, and to be able to speak only of Network Ten in glowing terms throughout his life would erode his legitimacy and professionalism as a commentator and as an academic.”

Judge David Hammerschlag, who is presiding over the hearing, rejected her claim.

‘Then why did he sign it? This is a contract matter,” he said.

After Ten took legal action over the article, Dr van Onselen accused the network of harassment and bullying and a ‘joint campaign to silence him’.

In an email to Ten’s attorney, Andrew Stewart, on May 31, he threatened to be a whistleblower against them and said he would “notify” Ten.

“By your actions you are harassing a former employee in a concerted campaign to silence them,” he wrote.

“This is in addition to complaints of harassment, harassment and no regard for my well-being by managers that I endured when I was an employee and made Ten aware of this earlier.

“I reserve my rights with respect to future workers compensation claims. I also retain my rights as a whistleblower to launch a public campaign to expose such bad corporate conduct if this harassment continues.”

Ten’s lawyer added: ‘This is not an equally mannered individual. He thinks he has a megaphone and will use it.’

Justice Hammerschlag will announce his findings at a later date, adding: ‘It never took me more than six weeks. This may be the first time…

“I don’t know when I’ll give my verdict, but I’ll do it as soon as possible.”