The substantive unfair dismissal proceedings concluded in February, and a decision has yet to be handed down.

Sue Chrysanthou SC, appearing for the individuals, said that “half a dozen” letters were sent to the media companies with the alleged contraventions, in addition to a statement made in open court by Justice Darryl Rangiah about the need to take “remedial steps”.

Despite these attempts, Chrysanthou submitted there had been no response from the media companies for almost three months.

Chrysanthou added that when the first complaint was made to Fairfax, she was directed to an executive counsel but still allegedly received no response. Both the counsel and a second lawyer were included in Wednesday’s (30 April) referral application.

“Regrettably, from our client’s perspective, we had no choice but to bring this application, including against a solicitor, a senior lawyer at Fairfax [Media], who did not respond once to over half a dozen letters and a [statement] from Your Honour at the bench,” Chrysanthou said.

VIEW ALL

Appearing on behalf of the media companies and employees, Tom Blackburn SC said it was a “grave and serious thing” to accuse two lawyers for what he understood to be “privileged advice [they] gave the publishers that it was okay or that it should be published”.

“What that means [is] the court will be invited to infer the contents of a privileged communication by inference.

“That is just impermissible, Your Honour, on any view. If the alleged contempt of the lawyers, a most serious charge, is based on something as flimsy and, with great respect to my learned friend, absurd … then we need to know that,” Blackburn said.

He added one of the lawyers was on leave at the time.

Blackburn said decisions have not been made on how to approach the allegations because they have yet to receive particulars, such as which parts of the allegedly offending articles were in breach of the order and the individuals who were named.

Chrysanthou insisted the particulars have been explained to the media parties in written submissions and in the six letters.

“We are talking about a media company, editors and journalists and lawyers, who had notice of the order from the moment it was made or shortly thereafter by reason of our correspondence,” Chrysanthou said.

“Our friend says he has no idea, he doesn’t understand, what part we rely on. It is a two-and-a-half-page article, it is not War and Peace.”

Given the seriousness of the allegations, Justice Rangiah questioned why media parties should not know the allegations in detail.

Chrysanthou said she did not accept “they don’t know”.

However, Justice Rangiah said there would be a benefit to all parties if the particulars were provided and made those orders.

The matter has been set down to return in mid-June.