The battle over whether the ABC's defence in the defamation case brought by former attorney-general Christian Porter should be made public or struck from the record will be heard in the Federal Court today.
Mr Porter's lawyers want a large portion of the ABC's defence material, which was suppressed before the case wound up, taken off the Federal Court file so no one can ever see it.
But media groups including News Corp and Nine Entertainment, as well as the Kangaroo Court of Australia's Shane Dowling, want the suppression lifted.
Mr Porter originally took the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan to court over a story about a letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison containing a historical allegation of rape against a serving cabinet minister.
Mr Porter was not named but he later revealed it was him who was referred to in the letter.
At a press conference, he categorically denied any wrongdoing.
The alleged victim and Mr Porter knew each other through school debating before the alleged incident in Sydney in 1988 when Mr Porter was 17 and the woman was 16.
Before the settlement in the case, Mr Porter and the ABC were already gearing up for an almighty battle over the ABC's defence.
Indeed as soon as the ABC filed its defence, Mr Porter's lawyers applied for most of it to be suppressed.
They stated they would challenge the material on the basis it breached Federal Court rules, which prevents material that is scandalous or frivolous from being admitted as evidence.
When Mr Porter settled with the ABC, no damages were paid, and the story remains on the ABC's website, albeit with an editor's note stating the ABC did not intend to suggest Mr Porter had committed the alleged offence.
"However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted," the ABC's statement said.
Porter's lawyers warned they were facing 'difficult task'
Crucially, there was also an agreement to keep the contents of the ABC's defence secret.
But Mr Porter's lawyers want to go a step further, hoping to convince the Federal Court that the documents should be removed from the record entirely.
Justice Jayne Jagot has already warned Mr Porter's lawyers at a preliminary hearing that it may be a difficult task.
"There has to be a reason for the removal of a document," she said.
"It's not just done because a party wants it."
