The federal court has reserved its decision on whether to suppress “salacious” evidence by a former employee of Channel Seven’s Spotlight program who is suing the network.
The “extraordinary and unprecedented” application by Channel Seven to suppress journalist Amelia Saw’s statement of claim and amended statement of claim was heard in the federal court on Friday.
A former Spotlight journalist, Saw has taken legal action against the network and alleges in her statement of claim that the program created a hostile working environment for women.
Philip Boncardo, acting for Saw, described Seven’s application as “extraordinary and unprecedented” and told the court Seven was essentially trying to avoid embarrassment and its application should be denied.
In her submission for Seven, Kate Eastman SC, said Saw’s statement of claim and amended statement of claim contained “salacious communications” about conversations and text messages between Saw and her employers.
She said the release of the statement of claim would result in a confidential mediation occurring “in a fish bowl” where “no-one knows what’s going on in that room but everyone knows what might be discussed”.
She argued the documents should not be made available to the media ahead of mediation as they presented a “one-sided” view of the case.
“One-sided entirely in supporting the way in which [Saw] wishes her story to be told, but not a process of mediation where both sides of the story are available,” she said.
Eastman said she was seeking “a prohibition on access or disclosure of the documents” ahead of the court ordered mediation process.
“So your honour’s been told that there was a keenness on the applicant’s side to have the matter sent to mediation,” she said.
“A mediation does not occur in an open court or online by people tuning in to watch the mediation as it transpires, to go into the separate or private conferences with the registrar and hear what’s going on.”
Justice Nye Perram asked why Saw wanted her statement of claim public and if there was a “strategic position” behind it.
Boncardo said there was no strategic position but his client’s view was the suppression application was unnecessary.
“In fact, your honour will see from some of the allegations … that those matters are matters that are not necessarily advantageous to my client,” Boncardo said.
“My client is not taking a strategic position, she’s taking an entirely principled one.”
Three media organisations, including Nine Entertainment and the ABC, opposed the suppression order. Justice Perram reserved his decision.
It is the second time the Seven current affairs program has been the subject of court proceedings this year.
The then Spotlight executive producer, Mark Llewellyn, resigned in the wake of allegations made during a defamation trial that the network reimbursed Bruce Lehrmann for money spent on cocaine and sex workers.
Both Seven and Llewllyn have denied those allegations.
In a separate case earlier this year, former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach made a number of claims in the Lehrmann defamation trial against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson about the way the Seven program had secured an exclusive interview with Lehrmann.
