Taxpayers are facing a $2 million-plus bill for the ABC’s failed legal defence of its decision to fire a radio host for her views on Gaza.

Antoinette Lattouf, 41, was awarded $70,000 in damages after winning her unlawful termination case in the Federal Court yesterday.

The journalist was dismissed three days into a five-day casual radio shift in December 2023 due to a coordinated campaign of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists.

She shared a Human Rights Watch post saying Israel was using starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza before she was terminated.

Senior ABC figures told a Senate hearing in February that the broadcaster tried to settle the case on multiple occasions and had already spent $1.1 million on external lawyers to defend itself.

ABC managing director Hugh Marks indicated total costs were likely to soar beyond $2 million, with Justice Darryl Rangiah yet to determine whether the ABC will pay a penalty or Lattouf’s legal costs.

“It will be millions and it is not a good use of taxpayer funds,” Marks told ABC Radio Melbourne this morning.

“I would suspect so (more than $2 million) because I wasn’t completely aware as to where the trial will go but it sounds like there’s still more work to do.

“It would have been better if it settled, it would have been better if it hadn’t happened at all.”

Lattouf offered to settle the case for $85,000 in July but it was rejected, her lawyer said.

Josh Bornstein has revealed there were other conditions to the proposed peace deal, including an apology and another five radio shifts.

Marks suggested the extra radio slots were a sticking point as they would have invited the ABC to compromise its editorial independence to external influence.

Rangiah found the ABC had unlawfully fired Lattouf for holding a political opinion.

The judgment was a complete vindication of Lattouf reposting a report that was “100 per cent accurate” and had already been covered by the ABC, former Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth said.

Roth said she did “nothing wrong” and he was amazed the ABC had spent so much money fighting the case, even if “undoubtedly embarrassed” at succumbing to external pressure.

“They’ve made a bad situation worse,” he told ABC Radio.

The decision was “groundbreaking” and gave clarity to employers about political opinions expressed by employees off-duty, Associate Professor of Law Giuseppe Carabetta told AAP. 

There were still questions, however, he said, pointing to comments — that he had received — that the judgment would help someone get away with hate speech.

“I don’t think the decision means that at all,” he said.

“But we still don’t know how far political opinion will go. That’s the unknown.”

The decision also reignited calls for a national human rights act.

“(This litigation) draws attention to the current lack of a constitutional right to freedom of speech in Australia,” Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns SC said.