Networks issue statements on John Stephens dispute
Updated: Veteran programmer blames his switch to TEN on pain-killers, but TEN says he is under contract to begin in June.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Seven and TEN networks have this afternoon issued opposing statements over their contractual stoush involving veteran programmer John Stephens.
Seven claims Stephens has opted to remain with them, but TEN maintains he is due to begin with them on June 9th and that Seven has “interfered” with its contract.
While TEN obtained an interim injunction to stop Stephens from reneging on his contract it lost that round in court yesterday and was ordered to pay costs for both Stephens and Seven.
A key question will no doubt be: where does Mr. Stephens now want to work and, really, what kind of work would be performed by an employee if they didn’t want to be there?
This will get ugly, folks….
Seven Statement:
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.
TEN Statement:
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.
Update: The Australian reports Stephens was recovering from a hip operation.
In an email to Ten CEO Hamish McLennan on March 10, Stephens wrote: “Now that I have stopped the painkillers and other drugs and with a clear mind, feel that I can no longer accept the appointment … and will not be commencing employment with Ten.”
8 Responses
But Mr J, these aren’t just rumours of interest. He’s actually signed a contract with them.
Shame when things like people’s livelihoods get ugly.
If I was TEN I would not want him now, as it may be counter productive.
Maybe TEN should start with a clean slate, that is no one from another network in Australia, look overseas or a new face with talent in Australia.
It sounds like Channel 7 has either offered John Stephens considerably more money, or sufficiently terrified him, or some combination of the two.
@Mr J – to me it sounds like Stephens has reverted his decision to stay with Seven, leading Ten astray. I don’t think Seven are at fault nor do I think Ten are at fault. Not sure about the details of his contract nor about what rules exist re: signed contracts that haven’t technically commenced yet though. Does sound like a Karl Stefanovic ploy though.
Well contracts for personal service are not specifically enforceable. You can’t make someone work somewhere. You may be able to stop them working somewhere else however.
Obviously putting someone you tried to sue and failed in charge of your acquisitions and schedules is unlikely to help. I can see him replacing SYTYCD with “Tank it” — where Grandfathers put on tank-tops.
Liz: How long has this [tanking NBC] been going on? Seven years? Eight?
Jack: Six months
Liz: Oh
surely a supreme court judge would not make a decision like that if what ten are saying is true. obviously he was under contract at 7 and ten were the ones interfering with that contract trying to poach him.
after Mel B and James Warbuton networks should learn they do not have freedom to walk into a rival network and poach whoever they want.
my theory, its all a karl stefanovic style ploy from stephens to get a pay raise in his years leading up to his retirement.
Lol