An intriguing legal battle is unfolding in Australia as a former tennis star-turned-politician challenges the limits of the country’s media privacy laws. This case could set a significant precedent for how privacy exemptions are applied within the media landscape.

Sam Groth, the deputy leader of the Victorian Liberal Party, has initiated legal proceedings against the Herald Sun. The lawsuit concerns a series of articles published in late July that speculated on the timeline of his relationship with his wife, Brittany.

The contentious pieces, authored by journalist Stephen Drill, remain accessible online. One of the articles, titled “How Liberal Party is courting controversy with Sam Groth,” has drawn particular scrutiny.

The Groth family claims these stories contain defamatory content and infringe upon Brittany Groth’s privacy, contravening federal tort laws introduced in June.

Under current Australian law, professional journalists and media outlets are typically exempt from privacy restrictions when gathering information intended for news, current affairs, or documentary purposes. This case will test the boundaries of these exemptions.

In a Federal Court hearing today, the Groths’ barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC argued the stories were not news but “salacious gossip”.

“We wish to cross-examine the journalist,” she said.

“In particular, we want discovery of all of the information that the journalist had at time of publication to demonstrate that they had not one piece of information from any person who had any first-hand information about the circumstances of my client’s relationship when they met.

“And any basis whatsoever, or any first-hand basis, to allege that there was reasonable suggestion that my client Mr Groth was engaging in a crime when he first started his relationship with his now-wife and mother of his two young children.”

It was not sufficient to just look at the evidence of the articles as federal parliament included the element that the content be “journalistic material”, she argued.

“Clearly, parliament thought that not all publications that purport to be news are news,” Chrysanthou said.

The News Corp outlet’s equally high-profile barrister Matt Collins KC is pushing for the exemption question to be put to bed before the case proceeds to trial.

The publications themselves were enough for the court to make a ruling on whether the exemption applied, Collins suggested.

“We’re talking about a front-page article in the highest-selling newspaper in the state about political matters, about the person who aspires to be the deputy premier of the state,” Collins said.

“Does that have the character of news … this is the first time this question has arisen.”

Justice Shaun McElwaine noted US courts had grappled for years trying to reconcile the right of privacy with the first amendment, which protects press freedom.

He will rule on whether the privacy exemption aspect of the case can be argued in advance of trial after a hearing on November 6.

If the privacy element was split off, the judge wryly foreshadowed it would be “inevitable” the losing party would appeal the decision and fragment the case.

“I can see what’s going to happen,” he said laughing.

“This is basically a test case. This is the first time this provision has been considered.”

Regardless of his ruling and a mediation hearing on November 7, the trial has been set down to run for 10 days from May 11.