Nine in the doghouse

NINE has been asked whether “a dog ate their homework” after the media giant failed to file a defence to a lawsuit involving an Instagramfamous cavoodle on time.

Oscar the cavoodle became an online hit, posing in colourful outfits and even appearing in an opera, as a custody battle erupted between the dog’s owner and babysitter, multiple courts have previously heard.

Nine’s A Current Affair was filming when Oscar’s original owner, Mark Gillespie, grabbed the cavoodle in a Kirribilli dog park in mid-2021 while his former friend Gina Edwards gave chase.

The confrontation became the centrepiece in the first of two broadcasts by Nine journalist Steven Marshall.

The courts have since declared Oscar’s former babysitter, Ms Edwards, should have custody of Oscar, the Federal Court heard on Thursday.

Ms Edwards launched defamation action against A Current Affair, alleging Mr Marshall subjected her to “offensive ridicule”, Nine made misleading edits to the footage and they set out to damage her professional reputation.

The Sydney-based barrister claims the second round of coverage defamed her by saying she used “delay tactics to prolong her unlawful possession of Oscar”.

Nine’s legal team on Thursday told the Federal Court it needed more time to file its defence.

Nine’s barrister Dauid Sibtain told the court he had been “incarcerated” because of illness and unable to help compile the document.

Mr Sibtain assured the court Nine had not been sitting on its hands but had hit brick walls over recent weeks.

But Ms Edwards’ barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, bit back, saying Nine should explain why it had not provided the defence or at least a draft document.

“We’re not given any reason, there’s no, ‘oh, the dog ate my homework’,” Ms Chrysanthou told the court.

Justice Michael Wigney cracked a smile.

“I’ve been restraining myself from making any jokes about dogs . . . I’ll keep myself on a leash as it were,” Justice Wigney told the court.

Mr Sibtain called Ms Chrysanthou’s claims “outrageous”.

Nine could not have retained an entirely separate team of lawyers to cover for his illness, he told the court, despite its resources and size.

Further, he said, part of the delay was because Mr Gillespie was not co-operating with Nine and did not “feel comfortable assisting” the network.

Ms Edwards has claimed, in court documents, that Nine depicted her as “exploiting” Oscar for her own benefit.

Mr Sibtain said that Nine would argue it was not defamatory to say that at all.

“TikTok and Instagram reels would shut down if it was defamatory to say someone has been exploiting their dog for their own benefit,” he said with a chuckle.

Nine has been ordered to file a proposed defence and must make a formal application where the court will decide if it can be accepted.