Steven May’s partner, Sachi Dade, has alleged she suffered emotional distress, psychiatric harm and public humiliation after Melbourne Football Club officials disclosed private information about her during a controversial meeting with players’ partners earlier this year.
In documents filed with the Federal Court, Dade also said she raised concerns about what she regarded as a breach of privacy with the AFL, including its integrity unit, before resorting to legal action.
Dade has commenced proceedings against Melbourne, coach Steven King and football boss Alan Richardson, claiming they committed a serious invasion of her privacy in the aftermath of a police welfare check at the home she shared with the former Demons premiership defender in January.
In a concise statement filed in the Federal Court, obtained by this masthead on Monday, Dade also alleges Melbourne vice president Geoff Porz contacted May’s solicitors in what she described as an attempt to apply pressure “through her partner, which demonstrated a continued lack of insight and awareness” of the issues.
This masthead has contacted Melbourne and the AFL for comment.
Dade alleges the club’s actions caused “emotional distress, embarrassment, psychiatric harm and anguish” and left her subjected to “rumours, personal ridicule and humiliation by members of the public”.
The lawsuit centres on three alleged privacy breaches by Melbourne.
The first concerns a club statement released on February 4 acknowledging Victoria Police had attended May’s home the previous week.
The second alleges Melbourne disclosed confidential, personal and sensitive information about Dade and May to the AFL. The filing points to comments made by AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon the following day, when he said the league had been “kept abreast” of developments by Melbourne and that its integrity unit was “across” the matter.
The third allegation relates to a Microsoft Teams meeting held on February 5 involving approximately 15 partners of Melbourne players.
According to the court documents, club representatives including King, then chief executive Paul Guerra and Richardson shared information that was private, confidential and sensitive to Dade and May.
The filing alleges much of that information was “false, inaccurate or misleading”.
It further claims Melbourne officials acknowledged during the meeting that the information being discussed was private and sensitive and asked attendees not to repeat it, while also claiming they were not aware of all the facts.
The precise details of what was said during the meeting have been placed in a confidential file, with Dade seeking orders preventing further publication of the material.
Dade alleges neither she nor her representatives were consulted before Melbourne informed the AFL of the matter, convened the partners’ meeting or issued a public statement about it.
“No one from the MFC spoke with Ms Dade prior to the First Breach or the Second Breach to advise her that the MFC intended to make a public statement and to divulge private information to the public or the AFL, or to ask for her comments or input on those matters,” the filing states.
The documents also allege no Melbourne representative contacted Dade before the Teams meeting to advise her it was taking place, explain the proposed content or seek her input.
The proceedings reveal Dade and her representatives raised concerns with Melbourne, the AFL Players’ Association and the AFL, including the AFL integrity unit, from mid-February onwards.
“The responses by the MFC and the AFL were slow and the concerns and complaints were not resolved,” the document states.
Those concerns ultimately culminated in legal action after the club’s public apology in April.
Following media reports about the Teams meeting, Melbourne issued a statement acknowledging the meeting had caused distress.
“The club held a Teams meeting with player partners. The meeting sought to provide reassurance of the club’s commitment to supporting the families as well as the playing group,” the club said at the time.
“Whilst it was not our intent, we acknowledge the meeting has caused distress and for that the club is sorry.”
Dade’s filing alleges neither King nor Richardson personally contacted her to convey that apology.
Dade is seeking a declaration that Melbourne, King and Richardson seriously invaded her privacy, a formal apology, damages, exemplary damages, interest and costs.
The case is one of the first significant tests of Australia’s new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, which came into effect late last year.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Sam McClure is an award-winning AFL journalist and broadcaster.Connect via X or email.From our partners
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.