Statements from Ten and Seven on John Stephens' contract

Network Ten has issued statements to the media to clarify the issue regarding John Stephens' contact.

B&T Magazine
Posted by B&T Magazine

See the statements below.

Network Ten: March 19, 2014

Statement from Network Ten on John Stephens.

There has been a lot of noise and misinformation around recent events involving Network Ten and John Stephens.

Network Ten had extensive negotiations with Mr Stephens in relation to his contract with the company.

Network Ten wants to get the truth of what happened after that contract was signed by Mr Stephens. The leaking of confidential documents to the media only strengthens our resolve.

We believe Seven Network, Bruce McWilliam, Tim Worner and others have a case to answer. On March 17, Justice Brereton in the Supreme Court of NSW stated there is a seriously arguable case that Seven Network has engaged in conduct that constitutes an interference with Network Ten’s agreement with Mr Stephens.

In light of recent events, and this case, Network Ten is not prepared to be bullied. Network Ten believes Seven Network has induced breach of, and interfered with, its contract with Mr Stephens.

 

Network Ten: March 18, 2014

A Statement from Network Ten on John Stephens.

Mr John Stephens remains under a contract with Network Ten, which is continuing and has not been terminated.

Under that contract, he commences with Network Ten on June 9, 2014.

In proceedings commenced by Network Ten against Seven Network, Network Ten claims that Seven Network has induced breach of, and interfered with, that contract.

Those proceedings remain before the Supreme Court of NSW.

 

Network Seven: March 18, 2014

Statement from Seven on John Stephens

Key programming executive, John Stephens, has decided to remain at the Seven Network, despite Network Ten’s public announcement on 7 March that he would be joining Ten and was critically important to Ten’s turnaround strategy.

Yesterday in the Supreme Court, Justice Brereton not only refused Ten’s application for interlocutory relief against Seven and Mr Stephens but also ordered Ten to pay Seven and Mr Stephens’ legal costs.