Journalist Antoinette Lattouf Wins Case Against ABC Over Unlawful Termination After Gaza Post

Federal Court Rules in Favor of Journalist, Awards $70,000 in Compensation

Prominent Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf has successfully won her unlawful termination case against the ABC, with the Federal Court awarding her $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss. The ruling marks a significant legal victory and highlights growing concerns around free expression, political opinion, and media accountability in the workplace.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an incident in December 2023, when Lattouf was abruptly removed from air just three days into a scheduled five-day role as a casual presenter for ABC Radio Sydney. The decision followed her sharing a Human Rights Watch post on social media about the war in Gaza, which included the caption:
“HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war.”

The ABC claimed Lattouf violated its social media policy, but the Federal Court found that her termination violated the Fair Work Act, partly due to her political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.

Justice Darryl Rangiah ruled that while Lattouf had been advised to avoid posting controversial content, she had not been given a direct instruction to refrain from commenting on the war in Gaza. The judge emphasized that her dismissal was not justified under the broadcaster’s editorial or social media policies.

Decision Driven by Lobbying Pressure, Court Finds

Justice Rangiah found that former ABC chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor was the sole decision-maker in Lattouf’s termination. The court concluded that he acted with “no more than a suspicion” that she had breached any internal guidelines.

The decision, the court found, was made in response to external pressure from coordinated complaints—specifically pro-Israel lobbying groups—rather than from a clear policy violation. According to the ruling, ABC executives feared that the complaints would “inevitably escalate” and acted preemptively to defuse the situation.

Justice Rangiah was particularly critical of the handling of the situation, noting that ABC's internal procedures were not followed and that senior management, including former managing director David Anderson, played a material role in the flawed process.

Emotional and Psychological Impact on Lattouf

The court heard that the termination had a profound psychological impact on Lattouf. During testimony in February 2024, she described experiencing paranoia, panic attacks, insomnia, and heightened anxiety following the incident.

Justice Rangiah acknowledged the “great distress” caused by the sudden removal and found it was still affecting her deeply.

“It is apparent from observing Ms Lattouf in the witness box that the termination of her employment and the circumstances in which it occurred caused her great distress and continues to do so,” the judge stated.

ABC Issues Apology and Acknowledges Failures

Following the ruling, ABC managing director Hugh Marks issued a formal apology to Lattouf, stating:

“We regret how the decision to remove Ms Lattouf from air was handled and the distress occasioned her. We extend our sincere apologies to Ms Lattouf and wish her well in her future endeavours.”

Marks also admitted that the matter had not been handled in line with the organization’s values, acknowledging that correct procedures were not followed, which resulted in significant errors.

A Heated Legal Battle

Throughout the two-week trial, Lattouf’s legal team argued that her political opinion, and possibly her ethnic background, were influencing factors in the ABC’s decision to terminate her. While the court ultimately did not find her race or national extraction to be a motivating factor, it confirmed that her political views played a key role in the outcome.

The ABC initially denied all allegations of unlawful termination, but internal communications presented in court—including emails and private messages between executives—suggested that the broadcaster capitulated under external lobbying pressure.

Her lawyer, Josh Bornstein, stated:

“Organisations like the ABC that fold in the face of bad-faith complaints about the Israel-Gaza conflict ultimately face perverse consequences—and that’s exactly what happened here.”

Inside ABC’s Mishandling and Fallout

Private emails tendered in court revealed internal frustrations among top ABC executives. Then-chair Ita Buttrose reportedly said she was “over” receiving complaints about Lattouf and personally informed complainants on the day she was dismissed.

The court described Buttrose’s testimony as “somewhat theatrical and difficult to follow at times,” though she was not found to have materially influenced the termination decision.

Meanwhile, Oliver-Taylor admitted there was “pressure from above” to replace Lattouf, despite internal advice that there was no justification for removing her. Former managing director David Anderson also conceded there had been a “step missing” in the removal process and agreed it was not consistent with ABC’s standard practices.

Adding to the controversy, ABC initially tried to argue in court that “Lebanese, Arab or Middle Eastern” did not constitute a race—a position that drew heavy criticism before it was later withdrawn.

Leadership Changes Follow Case Fallout

Since the incident, the ABC has undergone major leadership changes:

Ita Buttrose concluded her term in early 2024

David Anderson and Chris Oliver-Taylor also stepped down in 2024, citing unrelated reasons

Steve Ahern, former station manager at ABC Radio Sydney who hired Lattouf, resigned in 2023

These shifts come amid increasing scrutiny over how public broadcasters respond to internal dissent, political pressures, and freedom of expression in highly sensitive global issues like the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Lattouf Speaks Out After Victory

Outside the courthouse, Antoinette Lattouf was surrounded by supporters and spoke passionately about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. She tied her case to a larger issue:

“Palestinian children are still being starved… scavenging through the rubble for scraps. This unspeakable suffering is not accidental—it is engineered. Deliberately starving and killing children is a war crime.”

She concluded:

“Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing facts about these war crimes is also illegal.”

Lattouf indicated that there is more to come and that this ruling may be just the beginning of a broader conversation around freedom of expression in journalism, especially when it intersects with political and humanitarian advocacy.

Final Thoughts

The Federal Court’s ruling in favor of Antoinette Lattouf represents a landmark moment in Australian employment law and media ethics. It reinforces the principle that journalists cannot be penalized for expressing political views on legitimate humanitarian issues—particularly when no formal guidelines were breached.

For the ABC, the ruling serves as a stark warning about the dangers of succumbing to external pressures at the cost of fairness, transparency, and integrity. For others in the media, it is a wake-up call to stand firm on editorial independence and free expression—even when those views are unpopular or politically sensitive.