‘Salacious’: Seven’s bid for gag order over communications

Seven is attempting to block media from accessing “salacious” parts of court documents in a case filed against the network by a former journalist.

Channel 7 has sought a gag order over court documents and what it called potentially “salacious” communications after a journalist sued the network over her tenure at the Spotlight program.

Amelia Saw last month launched Federal Court proceedings against the network under the Fair Work Act, claiming she was subjected to a hostile working environment.

Ms Saw is suing for general breach of protections over her time at the troubled program in 2022.

Lawyers for both sides appeared before Justice Nye Perram on Friday as Seven sought a suppression order over parts of a statement of claim, as well as an amended statement of claim, which have been filed with the court.

Barrister Kate Eastman, acting for Seven, told the court Seven was seeking a suppression order over parts of the documents.

As well, the network says Ms Saw’s legal team should not have been allowed to make several amendments to its statement of claim, which was filed with the court last month.

The court was told the amended documents included communications and emails.

Justice Perram last month ordered both parties to attend mediation later this year, in an attempt to come to a settlement.

Ms Eastman said on Friday that if parts of the statement of claim were published it would put Seven “in a particularly difficult position in terms of preparing for a mediation”.

Amelia Saw is suing Channel 7. Picture: Supplied

“It’s not our submission that we’re saying ‘we are prejudiced’. What we’re saying is that the interests and the process of justice is prejudiced by the release of this information at this stage,” Ms Eastman said.

She said the court was given no notice, when the parties appeared in court on Friday, September 20, that an amended statement of claim would be lodged the following Monday.

She argued that the amendments strayed beyond what was allowable under the court rules.

“Those amendments go way beyond the provision of the court rules concerning both pleadings and it’s open to Your Honour to disallow those amendments,” Ms Eastman said.

She said she took no issue with amendments being made to fix errors in the documents, but she said there had been “significant amendments” to three paragraphs.

“The criticism is levelled at extracting large slabs (of communications) in those particular paragraphs … and putting them in circumstances knowing there’s an interest in obtaining the documents,” Ms Eastman said.

“The pleading rules are there for a purpose, Your Honour. And they are not there to plead out what some might consider to be salacious communications.”

Former Seven producer Taylor Auerbach gave evidence in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation battle with Ten. Picture: NewsWire/Nikki Short.

Justice Perram said the case could involve “the washing of a large amount dirty linen in public”.

Seven’s application was opposed by rival media companies, as well as lawyers acting for Ms Saw.

Ms Saw’s barrister Philip Boncardo described the network’s application as “unprecedented” and said his client did not oppose the material being made public.

“The substance of this application is that Channel 7, in effect, seeks to avoid embarrassment by the public airing of the allegations made by my client,” Mr Boncardo said

A Seven spokesperson previously said Seven denied Ms Saw’s allegations.

“Seven Network strongly and categorically rejects the allegations by Amelia Saw,” a spokesperson said.

Justice Nye reserved his decision and will hand down his decision on the suppression order at a later date.

Seven and Spotlight have been the subject of controversy over the last year.

The program was dragged into former political staffer Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation battle with Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson.

It emerged that Seven paid Lehrmann’s rent for a year in exchange for an exclusive interview.

As well, former Seven producer Taylor Auerbach gave evidence that the program reimbursed Lehrmann for money spent on drugs and prostitutes.

Former Seven News reporter Robert Ovadia sued the network for unfair dismissal but later dropped the action because of what he described as the emotional toll on him and his family.