Al Muderis spent $19,000 on media advice. Then he ignored it

Launching – and losing – a defamation action is a matter only for those with the deepest pockets.

Just ask disgraced orthopaedic surgeon Munjed Al Muderis, whose lawsuit against this masthead and 60 Minutes over a series of reports revealing negligent operations ended with a damning loss in the Federal Court last week.

After a marathon trial spanning years, Justice Wendy Abraham found Al Muderis was dishonest and callous and prioritised fame, money and numbers above vulnerable patients. She also ruled that Nine, owner of this masthead, had established both truth and public interest defences, in a landmark victory for journalism.

Al Muderis has vowed to appeal, but as it stands, he remains on the hook for Nine’s legal costs. All up, an estimated $19 million has been spent on the case by both sides, most of which the surgeon will have to cough up, pending Abraham’s final order on costs.

Much ink has been spilled about how these high-stakes defamation trials are huge moneymakers for lawyers on the media beat; they pocket millions even if their clients lose (and with losses by Ben Roberts-Smith, Bruce Lehrmann, and now Al Muderis, it looks like there is a bit of a course correction happening in the defamation capital of the world).

But legal bills weren’t the only ones Al Muderis was paying. Before he’d even launched his action in late 2022, the surgeon was already spending big on PR professionals to fight the allegations.

According to an invoice annexed to his affidavit in the case, Al Muderis spent $19,000 for just nine days of media advice that began the day the 60 Minutes program by journalists Charlotte Grieve, Tom Steinfort and Natalie Clancy went to air.

Al Muderis hired former newshound and seasoned crisis communications professional Peter Wilkinson for the strategic advice. The cost breakdown is a valuable insight into how spinners ply their trade. It includes regular briefings to rival journalists, most prominently to The Australian’s former media writer Sophie Elsworth, who was dropped Al Muderis’ concerns notice (the first step toward launching defamation action).

There was also a four-hour evening meeting with defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, at Al Muderis’ $11 million harbourside penthouse in Lavender Bay to discuss strategy, which set the surgeon back $1400.

Then, Wilkinson’s work for Al Muderis abruptly stopped. He declined to comment on how that relationship ended.

But according to the receipts, Wilkinson recommended prioritising media over legal strategy, with that particular piece of advice costing a mere $1050. Al Muderis clearly didn’t listen.

Just imagine the millions in legal bills, and unquantifiable reputational costs, he could’ve saved if he did.

Courtroom coup

The end of former Liberal MP Andrew Laming’s political career has been a morass of scandal and arcane legal battles.

But the former member for Bowman had the last laugh in one of those battles on Wednesday, when the High Court upheld his appeal over a series of near seven-year-old Facebook posts viewed by just 28 people that led to a fine from the Australian Electoral Commission.

In late 2021, after Laming had announced his impending retirement from politics, the commission launched proceedings against him over three posts on the “Redland Hospital: Let’s fight for fair funding” Facebook page before the election in 2019, which the regulator argued lacked proper authorisation of political links.

Initially, the Federal Court imposed three penalties on Laming totalling $20,000. The AEC appealed that decision, and a three-judge bench ruled Laming contravened the laws every time each post was viewed, doubling his fine to $40,000.

The former MP successfully appealed that decision, with the High Court agreeing with the initial judgment, which found that Laming had breached electoral laws each time he posted the offending material. The majority ruling focused on one specific section of the Electoral Act, with Justice James Edelman dissenting in a judgment that flexed his relative youth by mentioning TikTok.

So, in other words, a win for Laming, even if the original $20,000 fine remains in place. And separately, he remains on the hook for $10,000 in unpaid parliamentary expenses from 2019, after losing a Federal Court challenge last year.

The moment was lost on Laming, who wasn’t even aware of the result when contacted by CBD on Wednesday because he was out bush without much reception.

He later told us via text he was “delighted with the result and hopeful of a sensible conclusion to the matter”.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.