The Seven Network has asked a judge to keep suppressed court documents involving a former journalist suing the company because they contain potentially "salacious" communications and their public release may affect the prospects of mediation.

Amelia Saw, who worked for the network's Spotlight program, has taken the company to Federal Court alleging breaches of the Fair Work Act.

The parties are due to attend mediation next month, but Seven on Friday requested a court order which would keep parts of Ms Saw's court documents private, at least until after mediation has occurred.

Barrister Kate Eastman SC, for Seven, said an amended statement of claim contained particular communications which some might consider to be "salacious".

She said if those details were made public before a defence is filed, positions "will then be hardened going into mediation" and the process would become "one-sided".

"One-sided entirely in supporting the way in which [Ms Saw] wishes her story to be told, but not a process of mediation where both sides of the story are available," she said.

Ms Eastman said these types of cases involve interpersonal disputes in an employment setting and there may be differences in recollection or opinion about what was said.

Seven 'strongly and categorically' reject claims

Philip Boncardo, representing Ms Saw, said the "extraordinary and unprecedented" application appeared premised solely on the suggestion there could be a "disincentive" to resolve the case through mediation.

Responding to an argument that Seven would be forced to defend itself if the material was released, he said the network had already "strongly and categorically" rejected Ms Saw's allegations.

Justice Nye Perram asked: "Why does your client want this public … what's the strategic position going on here?"

Mr Boncardo said there was no strategic position but his client's view was the suppression application was simply unwarranted and didn't overcome a test of necessity.

"In fact, Your Honour will see from some of the allegations … that those matters are matters that are not necessarily advantageous to my client," he said.

"My client is not taking a strategic position, she's taking an entirely principled one."

He rejected the characterisation of the material as "salacious" and said any media reporting of the case would be about allegations only.

"The substance of the application is that Channel Seven seeks to avoid embarrassment by the public airing of the allegations by my client."

'You'll just have to bat on as best you can'

Amelia Causley-Todd, who represented several media organisations including the ABC in opposing the application, requested limited access to the material in order to make submissions to the judge.

But Justice Perram said he was "uncomfortable" providing it, even with a substantial undertaking to share it only with the small number of people instructing her.

"You'll just have to bat on as best you can," he told Ms Causley-Todd.

"I appreciate that puts you at a disadvantage … I think you can proceed on the basis it's colourful and embarrassing."

Ms Causley-Todd said parties attend mediation in good faith and also argued the public would understand any media reporting of matter would be reporting allegations.

She said it was unclear how such reporting of the assertions could impact a possible settlement.

Justice Perram reserved his decision.