Pittwater Life May 2018 Issue

Washington Post that Donald
Trump’s senior White House
members have signed confidentiality
agreements, which
has raised the query as to
whether they might be enforceable,
if not unconstitutional.
There are varied and specific
arguments in the Clifford and
McDougal litigation which go to
whether, in Clifford’s case, she
freely entered the non-disclosure
agreement. And McDougal
claiming a misunderstanding in
signing her agreement.
Both women allege that they
received funds which may
have circumvented federal
campaign-finance law, because
payments were unreported expenditures
by, or contributions
to, Trump’s campaign, intended
to influence the election.
Non-disclosure agreements
were widely discussed in
Australia in July last year in the
case of Amber Harrison, a former
Channel Seven executive
assistant and Seven CEO Tim
Worner concerning an extramarital
affair.
Harrison had agreed at the
end of 2016 to leave Seven on
the condition that the company
pay her in instalments a total
of $427,418 including $100,000
for “alleged injury, including
loss of professional standing
and reputation”.
A Deed of Agreement
required Ms Harrison not to
speak about the affair with Tim
Worner or anything that would
bring her former employer into
disrepute.
However, when Seven missed
a payment Ms Harrison believed
the agreement had broken
down. She therefore went public
about the affair on Twitter and
Seven went to the Supreme
Court and sought a permanent
suppression order in terms
of the Deed of Agreement i.e.
not to speak about the affair
or Channel Seven which might
bring Seven into disrepute.
Eventually negotiations
broke down. Ms Harrison was
left without legal representation,
funds, and an order in
the terms sought by Seven and
a huge award of costs (which
only recently Seven have decided
not to enforce).
While there has been debate
to disallow the enforcement
of non-disclosure agreements
there is, we would suggest, a
possibility that to abolish them
would have the effect of taking
away the bargaining leverage of
less powerful parties in a dispute.
Without a legally enforceable
undertaking/promise to
keep the issue out of the public
eye, many powerful people may
prefer to take their chances defending
themselves in Court or
in the media. Victims seeking
redress could be left worse off,
as their only bargaining chip
– the possibility of silence – is
removed.
n Since preparing this column
it has been reported
that President Trump’s
lawyers are seeking at least
$US20 million in damages
from Clifford (Stormy Daniels)
for violation of the nondisclosure
agreement.
Comment supplied by
Jennifer Harris, of Jennifer
Harris & Associates, Solicitors,
4/57 Avalon Parade,
Avalon Beach.
T: 9973 2011. F: 9918 3290.
E: jennifer@jenniferharris.com.au
W: www.jenniferharris.com.au
Business Life
The Local Voice Since 1991
MAY 2018 59