The complaint about Geoffrey Rush's alleged inappropriate behaviour during a production of King Lear was made during an off-the-record conversation in a bar, after which the theatre company did nothing about it for a year and a half, a court has heard.
In what is perhaps the most high profile defamation case since the beginning of the #MeToo movement, Australian film star Rush is suing publisher Nationwide News and journalist Jonathon Moran over articles published in Sydney newspaper The Daily Telegraph in November 2017.
The stories alleged a complaint of "inappropriate behaviour" had been made against Rush, and that he had "inappropriately touched" a female cast member during a 2015-16 Sydney Theatre Company (STC) production of King Lear.
Rush denies the allegations and claims the newspaper defamed him by painting him as a "sexual predator" and a "pervert" who had committed sexual assault.
Nationwide News has pleaded a defence of truth and the woman at the centre of the allegations, actor Eryn Jean Norvill, will testify at trial, despite not speaking to The Daily Telegraph ahead of the stories being run.
On Wednesday morning Rush’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou told the court there was “never any formal complaint” from Norvill to the Sydney Theatre Company about Rush’s behaviour.
“The only thing was a conversation between Miss Norvill and two people from the STC in a bar in April 2016,” she said. “Nothing formal to be done, it was in a bar, it was off-the-record.”
Chrysanthou said STC executive director Patrick McIntyre took no action for a year and a half after hearing about the complaint.
“There was no investigation process, no formal recording of the complaint,” she said.
“After Mr McIntyre has received queries from the media, he seeks information about the off-the-record meeting. That’s it. One and a half years later. From April 2016, the first we hear from Mr McIntyre on this issue is 9 November 2017.”
Chrysanthou also said Rush’s legal team would be arguing at trial that the allegation published by The Daily Telegraph that the STC had vowed to never work with Rush was false, saying “There was never any such decision”.
The allegation came from an off-the-record comment made by McIntyre to Moran, Chrysanthou said.
At the pre-trial hearing on Wednesday, the STC applied to have parts of a subpoena struck out that required the company to hand over documents relating to its HR policies and media statements.
Barrister Michelle Rabsch argued that the terms of the subpoena should be less expansive, and only include specifically documents that relate to any HR policy changes made because of the complaint about Rush.
“But any documents, procedures, and changes to those over a significant period is not likely to shed any light on the allegations in these proceedings,” she said.
Justice Michael Wigney pointed out that if it’s unknown whether any changes to the HR policy were because of the Rush complaint, then “the only way one can get to the bottom of that is a question of timing” by looking at the policies over the relevant period.
Wigney dismissed the theatre company’s application, saying it was "at least on the cards" that documents produced by the subpoena – or the fact no documents are produced – could be relevant to the lawsuit.
The case is scheduled to begin on October 22.