However, Justice Marcus Solomon recently found that those relevant to the defamation “overwhelmingly continue to live in Melbourne” and transferred the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Mr Bartlett was the partner-in-charge of Clayton Utz’s Melbourne office from 2010 to 2013, is currently the managing director of law firm Bartlett Workplace and served as president of the MFC from 2013 until Kate Roffey was appointed in April 2021.

The defamation action has been brought against current president Ms Roffey, club vice president Steve Morris, plus MFC board members David Robb and David Rennick, for alleged defamatory remarks about him, which were published in a number of media outlets, as well as in an official statement the club published following his resignation from the board. 

However, the MFC board members argued that many of these alleged matters occurred in Victoria and applied for the proceedings to be moved from the WA Supreme Court.

Mr Bartlett first launched defamation proceedings in June 2022, and in a statement at the time, Mr Bartlett said his role as the president of the Melbourne Football Club came with substantial drama off the field, as reported by The Age.

“I was doing everything possible to have a club free of workplace bullying, gambling, harassment and illegal drugs. The decision to step down when I did was mine. I did so to ensure minimal distraction, after a very promising and indeed historic start to the season.

“As president, a workplace/OHS Lawyer, and a parent, I was not willing to compromise on fundamental values, the law and expected standards of behaviour,” Mr Bartlett said in his statement.

VIEW ALL

“I believe that my approach and the raising of these issues resulted in a campaign against me from various quarters that was inimical with proper administrative governance and taking seriously important though delicate and sensitive matters. It also showed, in my view, a disregard for the health and wellbeing of both me and my partner and our professional and business interests.”

Mr Barlett also alleged that he and his partner had received threats and that he had been bullied before leaving the board in 2021.

Following his resignation from the MFC board, Mr Bartlett and his partner moved back to Western Australia, after which he claimed defamatory comments were made about him by the current MFC board members and presidents in three publications.

According to the judgement, Ms Roffey allegedly made defamatory comments in Perth in September 2021 regarding post-game comments Mr Bartlett had made after a loss in 2020.

These comments were eventually published in the Herald Sun, a Melbourne-based publication.

Whilst these comments were allegedly made in Perth, Justice Solomon found that the matters “related to conduct which took place when the plaintiff resided in Victoria, occurred largely in Victoria, involved people who were Victorian and is recorded in documents held by people or entities based in Victoria.”

The action also concerns an alleged comment Ms Roffey made to Melbourne radio station 3AW in June 2022, wherein she is accused of secretly recording a conversation involving senior AFL figures “regarding sensitive issues in relation to the MFC” and coach Simon Goodwin.

Further, the third claim in the suit refers to an official statement published by Mr Morris, Mr Robb and Mr Rennick on the MFC website in June 2022, which Mr Bartlett submitted “defamed him in relation to his conduct as president of the MFC” as well as contradicted a statement he had made about his resignation.

Despite the statement of claim being filed in the WA Supreme Court, Justice Solomon granted the application to move the proceedings to the Victorian Supreme Court, as “the matters complained of were overwhelmingly published in Victoria”, “most of the parties reside in Victoria” and “the applicable substantive law is the defamation law of Victoria, which is materially different from the defamation law of Western Australia”.

Mr Bartlett emphasised, Justice Solomon noted, his background, connection and reputation in Western Australia as “establishing the most natural connection” of the proceedings with Western Australia.

“While an important element of the plaintiff’s reputation is undoubtedly enjoyed in Western Australia, I do not consider that in these circumstances that aspect of his reputation prevails over the otherwise natural Melbourne focus and flavour of the subject of the proceedings,” His Honour determined.