Well for those taking an interest in this case the Federal Court's publishing of the ABC's defence, which was due on the 4th, was going to be a pretty big milestone. The Court had taken the position "Given the significant public interest in this matter, the Court has adopted a publicly available Online File." and Porter had filed his Further and Better Particulars which can be found here:

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc

So where is the ABC's Defence?

Unfortunately we are going to have to wait. Within two hours of submission Porter's defense team had sought to halt that publication. Not for any formative legal reasons it seems. From kangaroocourtofaustralia.com quoting the Federal Court.

“the Court has been informed that there are discussions between the parties concerning the publication of the defence and reply. Justice Jagot proposes to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to complete these discussions before the uploading of the documents to the online file.”

There is little reason for the ABC to roll over at all, rather there is a fair assumption that Porter's lot may well be scrambling for a settlement to thwart public exposure of their client to revelations contained within the defence.

Interesting.

Wondered about this post, but my Twitter feed this morning was full of speculation that Porter was trying to suppress matters in his case. What actually appears to be happening is that there are allegations made in the documents which are claimed to be "scandalous or vexatious and an abuse of process" and so Porter wants them out of the pleadings. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/christian-porter-bid-to-suppress-parts-of-the-abcs-defence-to-defamation-action/news-story/dbbac3a58140f28cf67a855d78cfa169

There is nothing sinister in this. Indeed, it may be that the ABC is the one with the sinister motive.

Any court documents attract privilege, and while they might be defamatory, as long as they are reported accurately, cannot give rise to a defamation suit.

What Porter is arguing is essentially that the ABC is trying to spread more defamation by putting it into court documents.

Making unsupported and detrimental allegations in pleadings is a not-unusual tactic by litigants, and the judge will make a determination one way or the other. What this post, and related ones on Twitter and elsewhere, indicates, is that the posters have already determined in their own minds the outcome of the litigation.

Can I ask that posters on this thread to be careful? It is very easy to trespass over onto contempt of court.

The courts have to behave according to
the law. And in this case - the courts will have to
decide. We have two opponents - the ABC which says it
"supports having all materials in these proceedings
which are in the public interest open to public
scrutiny."

While Mr Christian Porter's defence team and his
lawyers have applied to have some of the material
omitted.

Mr Porter's legal team is apparently entitled to
have some of the material omitted on the grounds that
1) they contain scandalous, frivolous or vexation material
2) That the material is evasive or ambiguous.
3) Or is likely to cause prejudice or embarrassment.

It will be up to the courts to decide this matter.

We shall have to wait and see.
Predicting anything is a bit risky at this time.
Suffice to say that Mr Porter having been this country's
Chief legal expert knows full well what he can and can't do
according to the law. His team will undoubtedly pursue this
case in a manner that will favour Mr Porter. And the ABC's
legal team will try to do the same for their client.

cont'd ...

Can the minister sue for defamation over an
article that did not name him?

Plus, how is the Minister's case being
funded - his salary won't be enough
as his case will cost millions of
dollars.
The PM has stated it's not taxpayers.
As a Minister - he needs to disclose this
information to ensure there's not a conflict
of interests or are the Minister's lawyers
doing it "pro bono?"

Apparently Christian Porter is financially comfortable
and well connected. His family is from "old money."
A family well set in Perth's upper crust. Porter counts
the state's elite among his friends. Therefore money
and funding should not be a problem for him.

This will prove to be an interesting case.
The ABC may well settle out of court.

Graham, The legal team of each party to the case will be trying a range of legal tactics. That's their job. It would seem a stretch to suggest that any such legal step might be because the ABC has a 'sinister motive'.