Three day hearing scheduled over Christian Porter’s ‘conflicted’ lawyer

The hearing will decide if Christian Porter’s barrister should be stopped from acting for him in his ABC defamation case.

Christian Porter leaving parliament after the budget was handed down on Tuesday. Picture: Jane Dempster

A three-day hearing has been scheduled to decide whether Christian Porter’s high-profile barrister should be stopped from acting for him in his defamation case against the ABC.

Jo Dyer, director of the Adelaide Writers Week, launched Federal Court action on Monday to restrain barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC from acting for the former attorney-general.

This was on the grounds that Ms Dyer had given Ms Chrysanthou confidential information when she was acting for her in ­another matter, that was relevant to Mr Porter’s defamation case against the ABC. Ms Dyer is not a party to Mr Porter’s case against the ABC.

However, she was a friend of the woman, known as “Kate”, who alleged she had been raped by Mr Porter in 1988 when she was 16 and he was 17. Kate committed suicide last June.

Barrister Christopher Withers SC, representing Mr Porter, said there were many factual issues to be decided in relation to Ms Chrysanthou’s alleged conflict of interest. That included whether she even had a retainer from Ms Dyer to represent her, what information was said to have been disclosed by Ms Dyer during conversations on November 20, and if it was confidential.

Mr Withers said he believed it was “common ground” that Ms Chrysanthou did not recall what was said in those conversations and there was no allegation Ms Chrysanthou had misused any confidential information given to her by Ms Dyer.

Federal Court judge Tom Thawley scheduled a hearing for May 24 to 26 to decide whether Ms Chrysanthou should be ­restrained from acting for Mr Porter in his defamation case.

Mr Porter, now Industry Minister, is suing the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over an online article published on February 26, which reported that an unnamed cabinet minister was facing historical rape allegations.

Mr Porter, 50, outed himself as the unnamed minister five days later and launched the defamation action on March 15.

A hearing in Mr Porter’s defamation action was delayed on Friday because of the legal bid to oust Ms Chrysanthou.

Federal Court judge Jayne Jagot, presiding over the defamation hearing, saidshe would not allow Ms Chrysanthou — who had attempted to represent Mr Porter on Friday — to be heard on any issue other than whether it was appropriate for her to continue to be involved in the case.

Barrister Bret Walker SC, who then arrived to represent Mr Porter, said it would be “profoundly wrong” for Justice Jagot to delay the defamation case or to stop hearing from Ms Chrysanthou. He said Ms Dyer had not even asked the court to prevent Ms Chrysanthou acting for Mr Porter for now, while her legal challenge was being decided.

Justice Jagot nevertheless ­decided to delay the case management hearing that had been due to occur until May 26 — by which time Justice Thawley might have decided whether there were grounds for removing Ms Chrysanthou from the case.

Justice Jagot said she accepted that to some extent, “the eggs were already scrambled”, given Ms Chrysanthou had been ­involved in the defamation case from the outset.

However, she said she did not wish to risk “adding more eggs to the bowl” and potentially further impacting the integrity of the defamation proceedings.

The ABC had two top silks ­appearing for it at the hearing — former federal solicitor-general Justin Gleeson SC and defamation barrister Renee Enbom SC.

Mr Porter is paying his own legal costs, while taxpayers are footing the bill for the ABC’s legal team.

Mr Gleeson said Mr Porter had alleged that one of the grounds that showed Milligan was motivated by malice was that the journalist had failed to disclose her close friendship with Kate’s friends. It was possible that Ms Dyer was one of those friends, he told the court.

Ms Chrysanthou is due to represent Mr Porter at a crucial hearing on June 1 and 2 to decide whether substantial parts of the ABC’s defence should be struck out.

She has not been prevented from continuing to be involved in the case or to help prepare for the hearing.