“We are encouraged by the court’s case management practices to ensure our pleadings operate on the basis of accuracy, [precision] and brevity. A pleading is not a place … to recite the contents of the communications of the kind here,” Eastman said.

In support of her application, Eastman said Saw’s lawyers told Justice Nye Perram “there was a keenness” for mediation during last month’s case management hearing, only to file the amended statement of claim the next business day.

In an affidavit filed with the court, Saw’s lawyers indicated this was prepared days before the case management hearing.

VIEW ALL

“At no stage during the case management hearing, particularly when Your Honour asked about pleadings, [were you told] there was an amended statement of claim in the back pocket,” Eastman alleged.

“No doubt, on instructions, Your Honour was not told this proposed amended statement of claim would be filed, and Your Honour was not told the intention was to file it the next business day.”

Eastman said there was “no consent or courtesy” to Seven, which told Justice Perram it was reluctant to proceed to mediation.

In response, counsel for Saw, Philip Boncardo, said Seven’s application was “extraordinary and unprecedented” and its lawyers had relied on an “entirely unsatisfactory ground”.

“The effect of this is … Seven seeks to avoid public embarrassment. That is the nub of it and that cannot, and never should be, the basis of a court finding that the order of the kind sought is necessary,” Boncardo said.

When asked by Justice Perram whether Saw had a “strategic position” in wanting the paragraphs to be made public, Boncardo insisted she has only taken a “principal position”.

“In fact, Your Honour will see from some of the allegations in the statement of claim, and particularly those my learned friend takes objection is … [is] those matters are not necessarily advantageous to my client,” Boncardo said.

Justice Perram reserved his decision.