Source : Perth Now news
Flashy billionaire entrepreneur Adrian Portelli has scored a legal win in his lawsuit against a former government minister as a judge declined to toss out the case.
The 37-year-old is suing former South Australian MP Andrea Michaels and the South Australian government, alleging he was defamed in a series of media comments made by Ms Michaels last year.
The case centres around a South Australian woman who won a $3.5 million home, featured on the TV show The Block, through Mr Portelli’s rewards club lottery business LMCT+.
But the woman was unable to claim the home – due to South Australia’s strict gambling laws only allowing lotteries with approved licences.
Addressing the media at the time, Ms Michaels, now an Associate Justice of the South Australian Supreme Court, made a series of comments Mr Portelli alleges defamed him and damaged his reputation.
She was quoted in news reports allegedly describing the woman’s situation as awful and suggesting Mr Portelli had taken money from South Australians despite knowing he wasn’t licensed to run a lottery there.
Mr Portelli later reportedly gifted the woman $100,000.
His defamation case was called in the Federal Court in Melbourne on Monday as lawyers for Ms Michaels and the South Australian government asked for the case against her to be summarily decided and tossed out.
Barrister Todd Golding SC argued the case against Ms Michaels was doomed to fail because her comments were protected under South Australian law as an exercise of her official duties as the then-Consumer and Business Minister.
He said Mr Portelli’s case could still run, but that the “proper respondent” was the South Australian government.
“There is nothing that the applicant loses in terms of a potential remedy,” he said.
“It is the intention of the state to plead that it is on the hook – to the extent that there is any liability.”
In response, Barrister Matthew Richardson SC, for Mr Portelli, argued it was “manifestly inappropriate” for issues about whether Ms Michaels comments were protected to be decided summarily.
He submitted there was “nothing compelling or obvious” that suggested the law was intended to cover a minister making defamatory statements in the media.
Mr Richardson said Mr Portelli wished to receive “vindication” and, if Ms Michaels was removed from the legal action, it would “deprive our client of the relief he seeks” – including a public apology.
Handing down her decision, Justice Catherine Button rejected Ms Michaels application for summary judgment.
She said there were contested issues between the two parties over how the South Australian law should be interpreted and that should properly be determined at trial.
“I’m not satisfied it has been shown the applicant has no reasonable prospects of succeeding,” Justice Button said.
Justice Button approved a second request by lawyers acting for Ms Michaels to move the case to South Australia.
Mr Golding had argued that it was the appropriate location because it’s where the allegedly defamatory material was published and where the witnesses expected to be called lived.
The “only connection” to Victoria, he said, was because it’s the state where Mr Portelli lived, but he had relocated to Dubai last month.
