Former Carlton Football Club boss Luke Sayers has failed in his bid to keep a bitter legal dispute with his estranged wife secret. 

Cate Sayers launched defamation action against her estranged husband in the Supreme Court of Victoria after the explosive social media ‘d*** pic’ scandal rocked the AFL in early 2025.

Sayers challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing it ought to be moved to the secretive Federal Circuit and Family Court where the trial would proceed before a judge and not a jury.

But on Wednesday Supreme Court of Victoria Justice Andrew Watson threw out Sayers’ application to transfer the matter.

The married couple’s battle erupted when Cate launched proceedings in January accusing her husband of defaming her, breaching confidence over confidential information, and committing a ‘common law tort of invasion of privacy’ through the publication of a statutory declaration. 

Sayers fired back with a summons in March demanding the case be moved.

In a judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice Watson ruled it was ‘not in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding’.

‘It is not more appropriate that the proceeding in this Court be determined by the Family Court,’ he stated. 

Cate Sayers alleges her husband Luke falsely implied she was responsible for posting a photo of his penis from his X account during last year’s scandal

Cate alleges Sayers falsely implied she was responsible for posting a photo of his penis from his X account during last year’s scandal.

She has also accused him of invading her privacy, according to court documents.

Sayers claimed hackers compromised his account before resigning as Carlton president shortly after the AFL cleared him of wrongdoing following an integrity unit investigation.

While Mrs Sayers enjoyed a win, her plans to have the matter decided by a jury failed. 

The court heard Mrs Sayers only made the request to have the matter put before a jury after she caught wind of her ex-husband’s plans to try and get the matter moved. 

‘Cate does not contend that she wanted a trial by jury when she instituted her proceedings,’ the judge stated. 

‘Rather, the affidavit material says that she made an election for a jury on 11 March 2026, after Luke had foreshadowed his transfer application. No explanation is given for the change of position on 11 March 2026 in her affidavit material.

‘Cate provides no positive basis on which she asserts the discretion to order a jury trial should be exercised in her favour.’

Luke Sayers had hoped to have the hearing heard in the more secretive Family Court 

However, Justice Watson accepted Mrs Sayers had a right to fight to uphold her reputation. 

‘Cate submitted, and I accept, that an important function of the tort of defamation is the capacity it provides to a successful plaintiff to vindicate their reputation. It can also provide an opportunity for a defendant to vindicate their decision to publish,’ he stated. 

‘The Family Court has strict provisions restricting publication regarding the course of proceedings in that court. I accept Cate’s submission that those provisions sit at odds with the vindication function that a defamation trial would ordinarily serve.’

Justice Watson said the trial of a defamation proceeding would ordinarily be heard in public.

‘That accords with principles of open justice embodied in the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic),’ he stated. 

‘This is not to say, of course, that some aspects of the trial, if held in this Court, may not need to be conducted on a confidential basis or in a closed court, but the default in this jurisdiction is open court, whereas the default in the Family Court is confidentiality.’

The decision paves the way for a full-blown media circus set to play out in November. 

Two of Mr Sayers’ four daughters issued a statement in January supporting their father, saying the dispute between their parents was part of a long and complicated family history. The statement was issued by the same public relations firm that is representing Luke Sayers.

Luke Sayers with his daughters 

Mr Sayers denied he was responsible for the post on January 8 last year that included a picture of a penis and tagged a female executive at insurer Bupa, a Carlton sponsor.

The post was quickly removed. In filings to the court, Mr Sayers argued his X account was managed by his personal assistant and that he did not operate or manage his social media accounts.

More to come.