The legal fight centring on an Instagram-famous dog has taken a fresh twist, with the pup’s original owner declining to speak to Nine’s legal team amid the network’s defamation battle with a lawyer.
Barrister Gina Edwards is suing the Nine Network’s A Current Affair and one of its journalists over reports focusing on the custody battle for Oscar the cavoodle.
Ms Edwards claims that the reports imply that she stole Oscar from its original owner Mark Gillespie.
The court was told on Thursday that Nine denied some of the claims, including that their reports implied that Ms Edwards had stolen Oscar after dog sitting for Mr Gillespie.
“We say the matters complained of do not convey any imputations of theft … but conveys an imputation that she refused to return this dog Oscar after dog sitting,” Nine’s barrister Dauid Sibtain said.
Ms Edwards’ website describes her as a commercial litigation lawyer who previously worked in the US, including on Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
The court was told that she also offered her services online as a dog sitter.
Nine is yet to file a defence six weeks after papers were initially served, with Ms Edwards’ barrister Sue Chrysanthou complaining the case was moving at a “sloth-like pace”.
“It means that nothing happens effectively for the rest of this month to meet their own convenience … It’s not rocket science, Your Honour,” Ms Chrysanthou said.
Mr Sibtain said as part of its defence, Nine was seeking to speak to Mr Gillespie; however, through his lawyer, he had declined.
Ms Edwards previously sued Mr Gillespie for defamation and because of the settlement his lawyers stated that he could not speak to Nine’s legal team about the matter.
Nine’s lawyers had reached out to Ms Edwards’ lawyers to ask that they allow him to give evidence, Mr Sibtain said.
“We are in a position where our primary witness, Mr Gillespie, was the person in the dispute with the applicant,” Mr Sibtain told the court.
“Mr Gillespie has declined to speak to us because he was a defendant in defamation proceedings commenced by the applicant.
“Those defamation proceedings resolved with a deed of settlement. He has expressed through his solicitor that he is unwilling to speak because of that matter.”
Ms Edwards is seeking the removal of the stories from the internet, claiming she suffered hurt and embarrassment.
The court was told that Nine had sent Ms Edwards’ lawyers a preliminary defence.
In it, Nine described parts of Ms Edwards’ claim as “embarrassing and vexatious” because it referred to other websites that had reporxjmtzywted on the matter after their stories.
“The language used by some was vastly different than our client’s,” Mr Sibtain said.
“We’re not responsible for what they say about what we have published or how they interpret the matters that are subject to the article.”
Ms Chrysanthou argued that if Nine was asserting that the claims were vexatious, they ought to file a motion for parts to be struck out.
The matter will return to court later this month.
“I see we now know what Oscar’s birthday is, so we might actually list it for case management on that day so we can all give our best wishes to Oscar,” Justice Michael Wigney said.
