'Complete lack of evidence': Amber Harrison to pay Seven's legal costs

Amber Harrison ordered to pay Legal Costs For Channel 7

Amber Harrison ordered to pay Legal Costs For Channel 7

Former Seven West Media executive assistant Amber Harrison, whose affair with the media company's CEO Tim Worner turned into a bitter public dispute, has been ordered to pay Seven's legal costs by NSW Supreme Court judge John Sakar.

In ruling against Ms Harrison, Justice Sackar delivered a blistering critique for running a case in the New South Wales Supreme Court without any admissible evidence to support her claims against Seven.

The costs are likely to be in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"These proceedings have, from the outset, been engulfed in a vitriolic atmosphere", Justice Sackar said in his published judgement.

"The allegations from both sides, whether entirely true or not, have often been personal, scandalous, and sadly ripe for media and public consumption."

Harrison has previously said she'll go bankrupt if ordered to pay costs.

"In relation to the question of costs, I think there should be an order that the defendant pay the costs on an indemnity basis", he said.

Seven West Media looks forward to putting this matter behind us.

Seven took her to court in February seeking a gag order holding her to those agreements, after she set up a Twitter account to air her grievances.

Justice Sackar said Ms Harrison made a decision to contest Seven's claim and run a cross-claim "mounted on allegations she could not substantiate" and "continued to run this case in the face of adverse interlocutory findings, settlement offers, and a complete absence of evidence".

Days before the hearing was due to start on July 10, Ms Harrison abandoned her fight against Seven, which then sought various orders, including all its costs.

Justice Sackar said Ms Harrison had been given "every opportunity" to bring the court case to an end and it was a "pity" she had not agreed to the orders at an earlier stage.

The Court found that Ms Harrison engaged in numerous breaches of the settlement deed and her employment contract and these breaches were persistent and flagrant.

He rejected her argument she was no longer bound by the deed because Seven had suspended payments to her, noting that she had not complied with her obligations to hand over electronic devices and records.

It is regrettable that people Ms Harrison falsely and unfairly named in her failed Human Rights Commission complaint were forced to take separate proceedings to protect their names.

"This conduct in my view is unreasonable, resulting in [Seven] incurring unnecessary and significant legal costs". She also filed an adverse action claim under the Fair Work Act.

He ordered Ms Harrison to return all company property and made a series of declarations that she had breached her obligations under the deed of release she signed before leaving the company.