FOR the uplift of subscribers here’s the letter media organisations have received from Channel 7 lawyers telling them to keep well away from the Amber Harrison story.

The injunction is back in court on Tuesday (Feb. 21) and, along with confidential information, Amber is prevented from making any public statement, off-the-record comments, backgrounders or tweets about Seven, her employment there, Tim (Woopsie) Worner or other employees.

Further, she can’t make any adverse statement or disparage Seven, Woopsie or any other employee.

This restraining order has few boundaries – all the more fascinating that it was sought by a media company that has broadcast its fair share of salacious invasions of people’s privacy – do the names John Marsden and David Campbell come to mind?

While Amber and the media are gagged, crusty old Seven directors like Kerry Stokes and Jeff Kennett are free to hurl their put-downs in her direction. Of course, there’s obedient silence from the Channel 7 hacks and hackettes.

In rolling out its ranks of lawyers to keep the plucky Amber at bay, the company has simultaneously unleashed a PR disaster the likes of which have not been enjoyed for some time.

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR PUBLICATION

13 February 2017

Seven Network (Operations) Limited & Anor v Amber Harrison
Supreme Court of New South Wales Proceedings No. 2017/00045726 (Proceedings)

We act for Seven Network Operations Limited and Seven West Media Limited (Seven) in the above Proceedings.

We are writing to put you on notice that our clients have today obtained an interim injunction from the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Order) preventing Ms Harrison from, among other things:

A copy of the order is enclosed with this letter.

Any person that publishes any information disclosed by Ms Harrison while on notice of the Order may be procuring the breach of, or actively assisting in the breach of the Order, and committing a contempt of Court.

In the event that your organisation is considering publishing or otherwise dealing with of any information disclosed (directly or otherwise) by Ms Harrison, we recommend that you consider the potential consequences of frustrating or nullifying the Order, particularly given the first order above was made by the Court to preserve the confidentiality of information and given such action will in itself likely be a contempt.

If necessary, our clients will pursue appropriate relief against Ms Harrison (and/or relevant third parties) in relation to any breach of the Orders.

Inducing breaches of Contract

Ms Harrison also has various non-disparagement and confidentiality obligations to our clients pursuant to Deeds of Release dated 1 August 2014 and 14 November 2014 (Deeds). These obligations (including the definition of confidential information) have largely been reflected in the form of the Orders and in the event that Ms Harrison breaches any of the Orders, she is likely to also be acting in breach of the Deeds.

Further, Ms Harrison has similar confidentiality obligations under her employment contract dated 17 October 2013, regarding the misuse and non-disclosure of confidential information. These obligations continue after her employment and are ongoing.

In the event that your organisation unlawfully interferes with the contractual relationship between our clients and Ms Harrison or induces her to act in breach of the Deeds or her employment contract, it will be liable for such conduct given it was aware of those contractual obligations.

Our clients reserve their rights to take appropriate action in relation to any conduct by your organisation that induces Ms Harrison to act in breach of her ongoing contractual obligations.

Yours faithfully

Here are Justice McDougall’s orders. Seven Network (Operations) Ltd and Seven West Media Ltd v Amber Harrison