highly misleading and even deceptive statements about the settlement
In a federal court judgment handed down this week, Justice Robert Bromwich found that Sky News Australia broadcast statements he described as 'highly misleading and even deceptive' about a confidential legal settlement between a pro-Israel activist and a Sydney restaurant. The case, which began as a defamation dispute quietly resolved through a joint agreement, unraveled into something larger — a pattern of coordinated media activity across multiple News Corp outlets that a judge found to involve not mere error, but deliberate misrepresentation. At its center is a question as old as journalism itself: where does the public's right to know end, and where does the obligation to honor a legal covenant begin?
- A settlement meant to quietly close a defamation case between activist Ofir Birenbaum and Cairo Takeaway restaurant instead became the starting point for a broader media controversy when confidential compensation details appeared on Sky News.
- Justice Bromwich found that lawyer Rebekah Giles had conveyed protected settlement information to journalist Sharri Markson despite submitting a court affidavit denying any such contact — a finding the judge determined to be false.
- Documents revealed a coordinated effort to brief multiple outlets, including the Daily Mail and Crikey, ahead of the settlement announcement, suggesting the confidentiality agreement was being actively undermined from within.
- The judgment exposed News Corp's multi-outlet reach into the dispute, transforming what looked like a single Telegraph apology in March into a network-wide narrative operation around a legally protected agreement.
- For Cairo Takeaway, the breach meant the very terms they had negotiated to keep private were now public across multiple platforms — the settlement offering no shelter it had promised.
- The court's ruling stands as a rare direct rebuke of major media framing of a legal resolution, with a judge explicitly rejecting the claim of innocent error and finding deliberate deception in how the agreement was reported.
A federal court judgment this week revealed that Sky News Australia had broadcast statements a judge found to be deliberately misleading about a legal settlement that was explicitly meant to remain confidential.
The dispute had its origins in March, when the Daily Telegraph apologized for sending a pro-Israel activist and a reporter to Cairo Takeaway, a Middle Eastern restaurant in Sydney's Newtown. The apology formed part of a confidential settlement resolving a defamation case brought by activist Ofir Birenbaum against the restaurant. All parties had agreed to a joint statement and to keep the settlement terms private — the kind of resolution that is supposed to stay closed.
But when the restaurant alleged Birenbaum had breached the agreement by claiming he had been 'completely vindicated,' the case returned to federal court. Justice Robert Bromwich found something more serious: that Sky News Australia, another News Corp outlet, had broadcast what he called 'highly misleading and even deceptive' statements, including Sharri Markson's reporting that compensation had been paid to Birenbaum — a detail that was supposed to remain confidential.
Bromwich determined that Birenbaum's lawyer, Rebekah Giles, had conveyed the compensation information to Markson or a Sky News employee on Birenbaum's behalf. The finding was particularly striking because Giles had submitted an affidavit denying any contact with Sky News about the settlement. She did not appear for cross-examination, and the judgment found her account to be false.
Documents also showed that Giles, or someone acting on her behalf, had sent a briefing paper to the Daily Mail and Crikey ahead of the settlement announcement — suggesting a coordinated effort to shape coverage of an agreement meant to be kept private. What had appeared to be a single incident at the Telegraph turned out to involve multiple outlets within the same corporate family.
For Cairo Takeaway, the breach meant the terms of their agreement were now public across several news platforms. The judgment stands as a rare moment in which a court directly examined and rejected the framing of a legal settlement by major media, finding not error but deliberate deception.
A federal court judgment this week pulled back the curtain on a messy chapter in Australian media ethics, revealing that Sky News Australia had published statements a judge found to be deliberately misleading about a legal settlement that was supposed to stay confidential.
The dispute began in March when the Daily Telegraph apologized for sending a pro-Israel activist and a reporter to Cairo Takeaway, a popular Middle Eastern restaurant in Sydney's Newtown. The apology was part of a confidential settlement resolving a defamation case brought by the activist, Ofir Birenbaum, against the restaurant over statements made on social media. All parties had agreed to publish a joint statement and keep the settlement terms private. It seemed like the kind of thing that could be quietly closed.
But the restaurant later alleged that Birenbaum had breached the agreement by claiming he had been "completely vindicated." When the case returned to federal court, Justice Robert Bromwich examined what had actually happened and found something more troubling: Sky News Australia, another arm of News Corp, had broadcast what he described as "highly misleading and even deceptive" statements about the settlement. Specifically, Sharri Markson's segment reported that compensation had been paid to Birenbaum—a detail that was supposed to remain confidential.
Bromwich determined that Birenbaum's lawyer, Rebekah Giles, had conveyed the compensation information to Markson or another Sky News employee on Birenbaum's behalf. Markson's reporting referenced compensation being paid to Birenbaum in three separate places. The finding was particularly striking because Giles had submitted an affidavit to the court denying any contact with Sky News or related entities about the settlement. She stated she had not communicated with Markson or anyone else at the outlet prior to publication. But she did not appear for cross-examination, and Bromwich's judgment found her account was false.
Documents revealed during the case also showed that Giles, or someone acting on her behalf, had sent a briefing paper to the Daily Mail and Crikey backgrounding journalists ahead of the confidential settlement announcement. The pattern suggested a coordinated effort to shape media coverage of an agreement that was explicitly meant to be kept private.
The judgment exposed the reach of News Corp's involvement in the dispute. What had appeared to be a single incident at the Telegraph—the March apology—turned out to involve multiple outlets within the same corporate family working to report on or influence the narrative around a confidential legal resolution. For the restaurant, which had sought to put the matter to rest through a settlement, the breach meant the terms and details of their agreement were now public knowledge, discussed across multiple news platforms.
Giles has been contacted for comment but has not yet responded. The judgment stands as a rare moment when a court has directly examined and rejected the framing of a legal settlement by major media outlets, finding not mere error but deliberate deception in how the agreement was reported.
Notable Quotes
I did not at any time prior to the publication of Sky, communicate with Ms Markson or any other person at Sky News— Rebekah Giles, in court affidavit (later contradicted by the judge's findings)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that a confidential settlement got reported on? Settlements are news.
The parties agreed not to disclose the terms. That's the whole point of a confidential settlement—you trade the right to litigate for privacy and finality. When someone breaches that, the other party loses what they bargained for.
But the public has an interest in knowing what happened, doesn't it?
They do. But the restaurant and the activist both agreed to keep it quiet. The restaurant especially—they wanted to move on. Once the details are public, they can't un-ring that bell.
So the lawyer broke the law?
The judge found she conveyed confidential information to Sky News. Whether that's a legal breach depends on the settlement terms, which we don't know. But it's a breach of the agreement itself, at minimum.
And she denied it in court?
She submitted an affidavit saying she never contacted Sky News. Then she didn't show up for cross-examination. The judge didn't believe her.
What does this say about News Corp?
That multiple outlets within the same company were involved in reporting on or shaping the narrative around a confidential legal matter. The Telegraph apologized, but Sky News was simultaneously broadcasting details that were supposed to stay private. It suggests coordination or at least a culture where confidentiality agreements aren't taken seriously.