MELBOURNE, Australia | The Federal Court of Australia has dismissed a discrimination case brought against journalist Mary Kostakidis after the parties agreed to discontinue proceedings, ending a closely watched legal dispute over antisemitism, journalism and political expression without a judicial finding on the central allegations.
The proceeding, Cassuto v Kostakidis, was brought by Zionist Federation of Australia chief executive Alon Cassuto over social media posts Kostakidis published in 2024.
The Federal Court dismissed the case after the parties agreed to discontinue the proceeding, with no order as to legal costs, according to reporting published Thursday. Because the case ended before a substantive hearing, the court did not determine whether Kostakidisโs posts unlawfully discriminated against, vilified or incited hatred toward Jewish Australians or Israelis.
The Federal Court had established a dedicated public online file for the proceeding because of the level of public interest surrounding the case. Court records show the matter had generated extensive applications, submissions and evidentiary material before its conclusion.
Dispute Centered on Nasrallah Speech
The case arose primarily from Kostakidis sharing on social media material featuring Hassan Nasrallah, then the leader of Hezbollah.
Cassuto alleged that the posts incited hatred against Israelis and Jewish Australians.
Kostakidis denied wrongdoing and argued that sharing the material formed part of legitimate journalism and political expression concerning Israel and the war that followed the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks.
The litigation followed an earlier complaint process before the Australian Human Rights Commission.
After mediation failed, Cassuto commenced Federal Court proceedings in March 2025. The case was scheduled to proceed to trial after earlier attempts to resolve it failed.
Kostakidis had also sought to have the proceedings struck out before trial. That effort was unsuccessful, allowing the case to continue until the parties ultimately agreed to discontinue it.
No Court Finding on Antisemitism Allegations
The outcome is significant because dismissal of the proceeding does not amount to a finding that either partyโs substantive position was correct.
The allegations against Kostakidis were not proven at trial.
The court also did not reject them after a hearing on the evidence.
The distinction matters given the broader public debate surrounding the case.
Cassuto and the ZFA argued that material promoted through Kostakidisโs social media activity crossed the boundary between political commentary about Israel and content capable of inciting hostility toward Israelis and Jews.
Kostakidis maintained that reporting or sharing controversial political speech should not itself be treated as racial discrimination and said the proceeding raised fundamental questions about press freedom and political communication.
The case therefore became part of a wider Australian debate about where criticism of Israel ends and antisemitism begins, and how anti-discrimination law should apply to journalists, political advocates and social media users.
Both Sides Claim Their Objectives Were Advanced
According to The Australian, Kostakidis characterized the conclusion of the proceedings as a vindication of press freedom and democratic expression.
Cassuto, meanwhile, said his objectives had largely been achieved and that continuing the litigation offered little benefit.
The reported settlement followed an earlier apology by Kostakidis in 2025 for distress caused by some of the material, although she continued to defend the importance of reporting controversial statements and political developments.
The exact terms of any broader agreement between the parties have not been publicly established beyond the discontinuance of the proceeding and absence of a costs order.
Case Had Become a Test of Competing Rights
The litigation had attracted attention well beyond the two parties because it touched several increasingly contentious issues in Australian public life.
Jewish organizations have argued that antisemitic rhetoric is frequently repackaged as anti-Israel political advocacy and that traditional anti-discrimination laws must remain capable of addressing incitement directed at Jews and Israelis.
Civil liberties advocates and supporters of Kostakidis countered that expansive interpretations of racial vilification law could chill legitimate discussion of Israel, Zionism and events in the Middle East.
Those competing arguments would have received closer judicial examination had the case proceeded to trial.
They now remain unresolved.
The Federal Courtโs public file confirms that substantial interlocutory litigation occurred during the case, including disputes over evidence and procedure. The proceeding nevertheless ended before a judge made final findings on the central discrimination allegations.
That means neither side can point to a substantive Federal Court judgment establishing whether Kostakidisโs 2024 posts breached Australian discrimination law.
The legal proceeding is over, but the underlying debate over antisemitism, political speech and the responsibilities of journalists publishing extremist rhetoric remains very much alive in Australia.
TheJ.ca receives no government money. Independent journalism depends on readers who believe these stories must be told. Consider supporting our efforts.
Stand Proud. Stand Strong. Stand Zionist.
