Australian federal court ends Zionist Federation case against journalist Mary Kostakidis by consent

Proceedings end without a costs order

Federal court proceedings brought by the Zionist Federation of Australia against journalist and former SBS newsreader Mary Kostakidis have been discontinued with the agreement of both parties and no order as to costs. The Guardian reported that the court dismissed the case on Friday, ending litigation that arose from two social-media posts Kostakidis shared in January 2024 about a speech by the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

The federation had alleged that sharing the posts breached Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act. The complaint was first taken to the Australian Human Rights Commission before moving to federal court. Kostakidis later sought to have the claim struck out, arguing that it failed to identify adequately the race, ethnicity or nationality said to have been offended. Because the case ended by consent, the court did not deliver a final merits judgment resolving those competing legal arguments.

Both sides claim a measure of vindication

Kostakidis characterised the discontinuation as a victory for political expression and press freedom after two years spent preparing her defence. The federation’s chief executive, Alon Cassuto, said his objectives had been substantially met by a public apology Kostakidis issued in 2025 for hurt experienced by Jewish and Israeli Australians who interpreted her posts as endorsement of Nasrallah’s remarks. These are the parties’ positions, not judicial findings.

The distinction is important. A consensual dismissal settles the proceeding but does not establish that the original posts were lawful, unlawful, antisemitic or protected journalism. Nor does it create a binding precedent on how the Racial Discrimination Act applies to online commentary about Israel, Zionism, Hezbollah or the Gaza war. Future cases will therefore continue to turn on their own facts and on the statutory balance between protection from racial harm and freedom of political communication.

A wider international debate

A United Nations special rapporteur’s 2024 report identified a global pattern in which responses to the Gaza conflict blurred the boundary between protected political criticism and prohibited hate speech. The report stressed both that antisemitism must be condemned and that restrictions on expression must meet tests of legality, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination. That framework does not decide the Australian case, but it explains why the litigation attracted attention beyond the individuals involved.

Debate will continue through Australia’s royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion, which is expected to report in December according to the Guardian. Its findings may influence future policy, institutional practice and public discussion, but they will not retroactively supply a judgment in the discontinued proceeding. The immediate development is narrower: the parties ended the case, neither received a costs order, and the disputed legal boundary remains unsettled.