Christian Porter’s defamation lawyer Sue Chrysanthou restrained from acting for him over conflict of interest

Former Attorney-General Christian Porter has hit a major hurdle in his high-profile defamation case against the ABC.

There has been a huge breakthrough in former Attorney-General Christian Porter’s defamation case. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Gary Ramage

Former Attorney-General Christian Porter has been dealt a major blow in his defamation case against the ABC, with his top defamation lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC legally restrained from acting for him over a conflict of interest.

Federal Court Justice Tom Thawley has ruled that Ms Chrysanthou is in the possession of confidential information which is “danger of misuse” in his defamation case against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan.

Mr Porter’s defamation case against the ABC alleges an article published by the national broadcaster implied he “brutally raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988” and that this alleged incident – which he denies – “contributed to her taking her own life”.

Justice Thawley today restrained Ms Chrysanthou SC from acting for Mr Porter, on the basis of the potential risk of the misuse of confidential information and the public perception of administration of justice.

“Recollections are liable to being revived and there is … a risk of subconscious use of confidential information,” he said.

“I accept that Ms Chrysanthou has spent a very considerable time on Mr Porter’s defamation proceedings and that will be prejudicial to Mr Porter in this respect.”

However, he said Mr Porter had been aware of the issue for some time.

“Mr Porter was aware there might be a difficulty in Ms Chrysanthou SC acting for you from at least 15 March 2021. He had retained her on 10 March 2021. Ms Chrysanthou SC must have known from that time and indeed earlier that litigation of this kind was a real possibility and probably that it was likely,’’ Justice Thawley said.

“In the absence of evidence to the contrary I assume that Ms Giles or Ms Chrysanthou SC, Mr Porter were broadly up to date with the dispute that was developing … that accepting the brief was a bad idea.”

Former Attorney-General Christian Porter in Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Gary Ramage

The ruling follows a legal tussle launched by a friend of the woman who accused Mr Porter of raping her in 1988. Mr Porter vehemently denies the claims.

The friend, Adelaide writer’s festival director Jo Dyer, met with Ms Chrysanthou over a separate defamation matter last year that related to her participation in a Four Corners program about Mr Porter.

She attended a meeting with Ms Chrysanthou about the matter and several other friends including a former boyfriend of Mr Porter’s accuser, James Hooke, all of whom are likely to be called as witnesses in the defamation trial.

Earlier, Mr Porter and the ABC confirmed they will enter mediation as they attempt to come to a resolution in their defamation battle.

Mr Porter has begun defamation proceedings against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over an online report which said historical sexual assault claims had been made against a cabinet minister.

He was not named in the article and outed himself as the minister in question at a press conference five days later.

The parties on Thursday agreed to enter mediation with the Federal Court ordering that any unredacted materials be provided to any mediator.

During her evidence, Ms Chrysanthou said another defamation lawyer, Matthew Richardson, the son of former Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson, later attempted to warn her about taking on Mr Porter as a client because the woman’s friends were acting “like a cult” and were prepared to smear her in the press.

Ms Dyer’s barrister, Michael Hodge QC, on Thursday told the court that Ms Chrysanthou was putting words in Mr Richardson’s mouth and it was unlikely he ever said anything to that effect.

Christian Porter's lawyer Sue Chrysanthou. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Adam Yip

“The evidence that she gave, putting those words into Mr Richardson’s mouth, can’t be correct,” Mr Hodge said.

Mr Porter’s barrister Christopher Withers questioned why Mr Richardson was not called as a witness.

“In the circumstances where there is a contest about this, this is a case where we say Mr Richardson could have been called and give evidence about what was said,” Mr Withers said.

Mr Withers denied that Ms Chrysanthou was in possession of any confidential information, saying it was now in the public domain through the press.

He added that even if she was, she would not be able to use it in Mr Porter’s defence.

“Assume there is some confidential information that is there … that is known to Ms Chrysanthou,” Mr Withers said.

“A lot of that information would be negative to Mr Porter. It’s very hard to see how it could be used that information in these defamation proceedings.”

However, Mr Hodge referred to a schedule of information, tendered to the court, which set out what was discussed during the conference.

“I’ve been told there is a piece of information set out in paragraph 17 that is not known,” Mr Hodge said.

In a statement released by his lawyer Rebekah Giles, Mr Porter thanked Ms Chrysanthou for her work.

His legal team have previously argued it would be a “big deal” if she was restrained from acting for him by the Federal Court.

“In representing Mr Porter, Ms Chrysanthou has been subject to great pressure but has provided her services fearlessly,” he said.

“Mr Porter wishes to thank Ms Chrysanthou for her efforts. She is an outstanding and dedicated lawyer, a true leader in her field.”