Tessa Lee, Sports journalist reporting on global leagues since 2021.
Luke Sayers defamation case remains in focus after the AFL said on Wednesday it was comfortable with how its integrity unit handled the matter involving the former Carlton president. The case, which centres on defamation claims involving Sayers and his estranged wife Cate Sayers, will continue in the Victorian Supreme Court after a judge rejected an application to move proceedings elsewhere. The dispute matters because it continues to raise questions around the AFL investigation and the handling of allegations connected to a social media post made earlier in 2025.
Former Carlton president Luke Sayers stepped down from his role at the beginning of 2025 after controversy surrounding a lewd image that appeared on social media. The post was quickly deleted and triggered investigations by both Carlton and the AFL.
The league has since faced questions about whether its own integrity investigation was sufficiently thorough after reports suggested Sayers was cleared based on evidence presented directly to investigators.
AFL says it is comfortable with its investigation
According to comments reported on Channel 7 program The Agenda Setters, the AFL remains confident in the way the matter was handled.
7NEWS chief AFL reporter Mitch Cleary said league officials believed the dispute was primarily a private legal matter between Luke and Cate Sayers.
Cleary said the league believed its integrity unit acted on the information available at the time.
He reported that AFL officials said any issues relating to inaccurate information contained within statutory declarations would sit with the individuals involved rather than the league itself.
The AFL position suggests the organisation does not expect future court developments to significantly affect the conclusions reached during its internal process.
Supreme Court to hear the case
The Victorian Supreme Court will continue to oversee proceedings after Justice Andrew Watson rejected Luke Sayers application to move the matter to another jurisdiction.
The court also confirmed the matter will proceed before a judge alone rather than a jury.
Cate Sayers had sought a jury trial in relation to allegations that Luke Sayers and a Carlton board member defamed her.
Justice Watson said the Supreme Court was the appropriate forum for the dispute because of its experience with defamation proceedings.
In published reasons, the judge stated that the court had a long history of dealing with defamation matters and was well suited to hearing this type of case.
He also pointed to the importance of reputation in defamation law.
According to the judgment, the ability for defendants to publicly defend and restore their reputations formed an important part of these proceedings.
Claims at the centre of the dispute
Cate Sayers claims she was defamed through a statutory declaration sworn by Luke Sayers.
According to reports, the declaration accused her of accessing his X account and posting a photograph showing his genitalia while tagging a female executive from Bupa.
The declaration was reportedly prepared and sworn in the weeks following the controversial post.
The incident drew significant attention because of Luke Sayers high profile role at Carlton and because of the involvement of AFL integrity officials during the investigation phase.
The allegations themselves remain subject to court proceedings and have not yet been determined by the Supreme Court.
Possible witnesses and subpoenas expected
Cleary also reported that former adviser and crisis manager Sharon McCrohan could become involved in proceedings through subpoenas.
McCrohan previously advised Luke Sayers during the controversy and now works within the AFL.
According to the report, several individuals connected to the events surrounding the investigation could be called upon to provide evidence or documents during proceedings.
The AFL position remains that any information produced through subpoenas is not expected to reveal wrongdoing by league officials.
That confidence reflects the league view that it acted appropriately when responding to the information available during the original investigation.
Why the ruling matters
Justice Watson also highlighted why moving the matter away from the Supreme Court was not appropriate.
He noted that restrictions around publication within Family Court proceedings could conflict with one of the key functions of defamation law.
The judge said public vindication remains an important aspect of defamation cases because reputational damage often occurs publicly.
That reasoning means the dispute is likely to continue under conditions where significant parts of proceedings can remain publicly reported.
For the AFL, Carlton, and the people involved, the decision ensures ongoing public attention on a matter that has already generated substantial discussion throughout football circles.
The case will now continue through the Victorian Supreme Court where the allegations, evidence, and legal arguments are expected to be examined in greater detail.