Login
Federal Court proceedings against Porter’s barrister ‘storm in a teacup’
The legal team for star defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou has argued that any confidential information she received from the friend of the woman who accused Christian Porter of rape was in the public domain and the current proceeding in the Federal Court is a “storm in a teacup” with “hopelessly inadequate” evidence.
Naomi Neilson
Sydney defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou’s legal team has appeared before the Federal Court to argue that she should retain her position on Christian Porter’s star-studded legal team because the advice she gave in a separate matter would not be in conflict or would be used to the former attorney-general’s advantage.
Ms Dyer’s lawyer Michael Hodge QC told the court on Monday that the information given to Ms Chrysanthou during the meeting was confidential and that, based on a statement of claim filed by Mr Porter’s legal team in March 2021, there “appears to be a relationship between the confidential information and the pleaded case”.
He also took issue with the history of events, which he said started with the filing of the statement of claim before Ms Chrysanthou reached out to Ms Dyer’s legal team at Marque Lawyers to inform them she was acting for Mr Porter. Mr Hodge said the communication between Ms Chrysanthou and Ms Dyer relating to the first matter ended on 4 March and that she accepted Mr Porter’s brief six days later.
In response, Christopher Withers SC, who is appearing for Mr Porter, said that the entire case was a “storm in a teacup” and that some evidence submitted by Ms Dyer’s lawyers is “hopelessly inadequate”. He added that the information filed for Mr Porter’s case as it relates to confidential information is “all in the public domain”.
Mr Withers took issue with the insinuation that it would be in conflict because Ms Dyer could be called as a witness for the ABC. However, she has not brought forward any evidence and the ABC – which has knowledge of this hearing – has not joined the debate to advocate on behalf of Ms Dyer and the confidential information. He said the only person who says she is an ABC witness is Ms Dyer herself.
In what he added was an “act of desperation”, Mr Withers took aim at Ms Dyer’s legal team’s decision to produce a second affidavit from James Hook, the boyfriend of the woman who accused Mr Porter. This affidavit was supposedly uploaded at midnight on Friday, 21 May but he did not receive it until Saturday morning, which meant he had no time to gather evidence prior to this first hearing.
Despite attempting to have this evidence thrown out on the grounds that Ms Dyer’s legal team allegedly said they would not need it for their case, Justice Michael Thawley permitted it to be admitted because it “explains in some details” the nature of the information that was given to Ms Chrysanthou during the November meeting.
Mr Porter – who has strenuously denied raping a woman over 30 years ago – has relied on Ms Chrysanthou to appear for him in his ongoing defamation hearing against the ABC over claims that an article written by Louise Milligan identified him as the accused cabinet minister, despite never naming him. If Ms Dyer’s case is successful, it would mean that Ms Chrysanthou will have to step away.
In a statement filed last Friday, Ms Chrysanthou denied that there was “any conflict” between her duties to Mr Porter and her advice to Ms Dyer. She denied by acting for Mr Porter after giving advice to Ms Dyer was “failing in her duties as a barrister”.
On why she should continue to represent Mr Porter alongside his legal team – which includes Bret Walker SC and Rebekah Giles – Ms Chrysanthou said by reason of the cab-rank rule, “she is prevented from returning the brief for Mr Porter”.
The hearing is continuing. More to come.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
