A defamation battle being waged between media heir Lachlan Murdoch and the publisher of online news site Crikey appears to be driven by "ego and hubris", a judge has declared.
Mr Murdoch, the chief of Fox Corporation, is suing Private Media and senior figures at the company in the Federal Court over an article linking his empire to the 2021 US Capitol insurrection.
He claims the story, written by political editor Bernard Keane, defamed him in referring to "the Murdochs" and Fox News as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the deadly January 6 riot.
The article was taken down after Mr Murdoch sent a concerns notice, before being republished in August when Crikey publicly challenged him to sue.
Private Media maintains the story is not defamatory, and that its contents were in the public interest.
On Tuesday, the court heard Private Media, Mr Keane and the other respondents had asked to update their defence for a fourth time, in light of documents revealed in a separate court case involving Fox News the US.
Justice Michael Wigney said he was "satisfied" by Crikey's argument for the delay.
Mr Wigney also concluded he was "not persuaded" by Mr Murdoch's arguments it would delay the October court date and said they demonstrated he would "not at all be prejudiced" by the relatively short set back.
Michael Hodge KC told the court the defendants would argue Mr Murdoch never believed claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr Trump, but allowed Fox News to "peddle" it for financial gain.
Mr Hodge said material uncovered during a $1.6 billion lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems went to the "heart of Lachlan Murdoch's reputation".
Material released to the public included internal correspondence from the Murdoch family and Fox News executives, which Mr Hodge claimed provided insight into Mr Murdoch's state of mind.
"The applicant could have stopped Fox News channel from promoting the lie," he said.
In response to the judgement, Mr Murdoch's barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC warned there may be a strike-out application made relating to parts of the new defence.
Earlier, a frustrated Justice Wigney said he was considering sending the parties back to mediation, after hearing that allowing the proposed new defence could blow out the time allocated for a trial in October.
The trial had originally been scheduled to begin in March but was moved after Mr Murdoch moved to add Private Media chairman Eric Beecher and chief executive Will Hayward to the lawsuit.
"It seems to me that both parties ... could take stock at what's turning into a scorched earth policy," he said.
"There does seem to be a hint that this case is being driven more by, and I say this with the greatest respect, ego and hubris and ideology than anything else.
"I am seriously giving consideration to refer this case to mediation again."
Ms Chrysanthou SC argued against Private Media's application to amend its defence, calling parts of it "utterly hopeless and embarrassing".
She said the defence claimed an "ambiguous notion of culpability" against her client regarding his power in what Fox News and its commentators broadcast.
Ms Chrysanthou said the Crikey article, which was republished in August when Mr Murdoch sued, made no reference to other publications owned by the Murdochs which "made very strong claims against Mr Trump".
"What Crikey alleges is Mr Trump engaged in certain conduct, Mr Trump said something false ... and there was a reaction to the words of Mr Trump that day, and to various social media posts the day before," she said.
"This defence is not rational, it is not arguable, it's a waste of everyone's time."
Crikey will have until April 11 to clarify and address some issues raised on Tuesday with its draft defence.
