Disgraced soldier Ben Roberts-Smith is digging in with his attack on a judge’s findings that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan, asking the High Court to find in his favour in a defamation case against Nine.
Insurer Marsh has fired off a cross-claim against Swiss bank UBS in several cases brought over Greensill’s $1.7 billion collapse.
In tossing his challenge to a finding that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan, an appeals court rejected Ben Roberts-Smith’s criticisms of the trial judge, finding the judge gave sufficient weight to the presumption of innocence.
A court has rejected Ben Roberts-Smith’s appeal of a decision that found he committed war crimes in Afghanistan, as well as the disgraced soldier’s bid to re-open the case in light of a secret recording of Nine journalist Nick McKenzie.
A secret recording of Nine journalist Nick McKenzie speaking to a witness in the case may have been “doctored” and had to be “treated with caution,” the Full Court said Friday.
A witness in the Ben Roberts-Smith case threatened to sue Nine and journalist Nick McKenzie, the Full Court has learned, as the former soldier seeks to reopen his appeal following the release of a secret recording of a conversation between McKenzie and the witness.
A court has allowed Ben Roberts-Smith to admit into evidence a secret recording of Nine journalist Nick McKenzie, as the former soldier makes a fresh bid to revive his failed defamation case.
Nine journalist Nick McKenzie was pressed during cross-examination on Thursday in Ben Roberts-Smith’s bid to re-open his defamation appeal on whether he has used deceptive methods or ‘subterfuge’ in his reporting.
In their fight against oral subpoenas they say are fishing for broader grounds of appeal, counsel for two MinterEllison lawyers said on Tuesday that a silk acting for Ben Roberts-Smith should apologise for remarks in open court last week.
A judge has taken issue with an argument by disgraced solider Ben Roberts-Smith that a Nine journalist threw his solicitors “under the bus”, saying it suggested the MinterEllison lawyers engaged in misconduct in the absence of an appeal claim against them.