One person’s word against another will be the central issue in the court battle between Luke and Cate Sayers, as the fallout from the former Carlton Football Club president’s lewd photo scandal returned to court.
Cate Sayers wiped tears from her eyes during parts of an application in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Monday, as her estranged husband applied to have the defamation case brought against him by his ex-wife moved to a federal court, where the trial would proceed before a judge and not a jury.
“In this case, findings of fact will turn on credit,” barrister Matt Collins, KC, said on behalf of Luke Sayers, who did not appear in court on Monday.
“It’s inevitable there is going to be cross-examination of both witnesses … [and] submission as to which witness ought to be believed.
“The subject matter is [the] Australian Football League – a matter of obvious interest across Australia.”
The Supreme Court heard Cate Sayers alleged a confidential statutory declaration was sent to various people involved in or associated with the AFL in Victoria, NSW and Queensland.
This action, she alleges, caused serious harm to her reputation across Australia from a breach of confidence and was an invasion of her privacy.
In his defence, Luke Sayers admits to sending the document to the AFL’s general counsel, Stephen Meade, and barrister Christopher Townshend, KC, who was assisting the Carlton Football Club.
“There is a denial of any more widespread publication,” Collins told the court.
Collins said his client maintains he only passed the statutory declaration on to those people to protect his own “lawful interest” in response to an attack.
A defence of qualified privilege, Collins said, warranted the proceedings being moved away from the Supreme Court.
A photograph of Luke Sayers’ penis was posted on his X account for 13 minutes in January 2025, and a female manager at a Carlton sponsor was tagged in the post.
Luke Sayers said he did not operate the X account, and had the photo taken down when he learnt of it.
He was subjected to an investigation by the AFL integrity unit following the post, for which he provided a statutory declaration outlining how it had occurred.
“Mr Sayers denies publishing or causing the publication of the X post,” Collins said. He told the court the social media post “gave rise to the making of the statutory declaration. He says the publication of the X post was a defamatory attack on him.
“He had a legal, professional, moral … duty to respond to the query from the AFL, and it was in that context he published the statutory declaration.
“He says he published a statutory declaration in good faith and based on a reasonable and genuine belief … that Ms Sayers published the X post, though she denied doing so.”
The court heard Cate Sayers, who is being represented by Sue Chrysanthou, SC, disputes that the statutory declaration was published in the context of qualified privilege, and instead alleges her estranged husband did so out of malice by including information in it that was false.
“An explicit photograph is posted on Mr Sayers social media account. He is asked by Carlton and the AFL, he says, to explain that,” Chrysanthou told the court on Monday. “We say he blames my client for it. That’s how the cause of action arises.”
Cate Sayers claims her estranged husband defamed her in the document and breached her confidence by saying she was responsible for posting the photograph. She also said in her statement of claim that he disclosed information about her private life, including her sexual history and medical information.
The statutory declaration, Cate Sayers claims, defamed her because it implied: “Cate suffers from mental illness and has been prescribed medication by her doctors which she periodically refuses to take, such that her denials about posting the explicit photo from Mr Sayers’ X account cannot be trusted.”
Chrysanthou told the court on Monday, “The false imputation which is pleaded … is that my client has been diagnosed with bipolar and multiple personalty disorder, and is prescribed medication from a doctor which she periodically refuses to take.
“We say she’s never suffered from those things and never been prescribed medication which she refuses to take.”
But Collins, acting for Luke Sayers, said if the matter proceeded to trial, his client would need to give evidence and his credit would be challenged.
Any trial would involve a factual inquiry into that matter and whether defamation or a breach occurred.
The hearing before Justice Andrew Watson continues.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
