Add Category
The timeline for Lachlan Murdoch's defamation case against online publication Crikey could blow out after his lawyers sought almost 200 questions be answered by the publisher before the trial gets underway.
- Crikey's editor-in-chief Peter Fray and political editor will be called to give evidence at the trial
- A social media expert will be called by Lachlan Murdoch's team
- The judge cautioned the trial date of March 27 could be jeopardised in drawn-out legal argument
The Fox Corporation CEO is suing Private Media, which owns Crikey, over an analysis article published in June, about hearings into the deadly January 2021 insurrection on the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters.
Mr Murdoch said he was defamed after the article referred to the Murdochs and Fox News commentators as "unindicted co-conspirators" of the insurrection at Capitol Hill.
Crikey's editor-in-chief Peter Fray, and political editor Bernard Keane, will be called to give evidence when the trial goes ahead on March 27, the Federal Court was told today.
Barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC argued in a case management hearing today that the online website needed to respond to 180 interrogatories, or formal questions, put to them.
Justice Michael Wigney urged Ms Chrysanthou to reconsider.
"Do you want to go to trial in March?" Justice Wigney repeatedly asked.
"(If) anything is in dispute ... forget about it," he said, referring to the issues Crikey's lawyers had with the orders being sought.
The landmark case is set to test Australia's new defamation laws allowing for Crikey to reply on a new public interest defence added in most states, which requires the plaintiff to prove they have suffered "serious harm".
This was done to reduce the significant number of costly defamation battles.
Private Media has also raised defences of implied Constitutional freedom of communication about political matters, and a failure to accept a reasonable offer of amends.
Ms Chrysanthou said she would be calling a social media expert witness to give evidence about how the online posts spread "like a virus".
The specialist defamation barrister has previously raised concerns over the "conduct" of her opponents, publishing videos purporting to explain their defence of the case.
"The purpose of the re-posting (the original article) was not for the public interest it was for the media campaign," Ms Chrysanthou said today.
Justice Wigney adjourned the case management hearing to be finalised at a later date.