Nine’s A Current Affair aired a program about the dispute in May 2021, interviewing the dog’s previous owner Mark Gillespie and filming him snatching the pooch – Oscar – from former friend Gina Edwards at a Kirribilli park.

The segment racked up hundreds of thousands of views, attracting about 2000 comments – many of them negative – and was also written up for Nine’s online publication and by other media outlets.

Oscar’s current owner Gina Edwards – a barrister and former assistant state attorney in Florida – says Nine’s publication defamed her, and caused her substantial hurt and embarrassment.

In a statement of claim filed in the Federal Court, Edwards says the segment implied she was a thief who stole and exploited Oscar for financial benefit.

She also claims a follow-up story in June implied she delayed a court case about Oscar to prolong her unlawful possession of him.

But in court on Thursday, counsel acting for Nine said it would defend the lawsuit on the basis the program did not convey those meanings.

If that defence is unsuccessful, it will at trial prove they are true, or contextually true.

“The matters complained of do not convey any imputations of theft, but convey an imputation that she refused to return this dog Oscar to his owner after dog-sitting,” Dauid Sibtain said.

As for the allegation she exploited Oscar for money, Sibtain said Edwards had admitted she viewed the dog as a “public figure” and that his Instagram page was valuable.

Sue Chrysanthou, acting for Ms Edwards, called the proposed defence “rubbish” and accused Nine of proceeding at a “sloth-like pace” to buy themselves time to improve their arguments.

“Channel Nine says that an allegation that a barrister is a thief is incapable of being defamatory… (that) it is not even arguably defamatory to call someone a thief,” Chrysanthou said, as an example.

Nine’s proposed defence is unclear, lazy and unacceptable, and they will seek to oppose it.

“They have put on this defence that is full of rubbish,” Chrysanthou said.

“We seriously don’t know the case we have to meet.”

Edwards is seeking the program be removed from Nine’s social media pages and its online streaming platform, as well as financial damages.

“Edwards has been gravely injured in her character and reputation and has suffered substantial hurt and embarrassment … and will continue to suffer loss and damage,” the statement of claim says.

It says the hurt she suffered as a result of the program was aggravated by the fact she was ambushed by the A Current Affair crew and filmed as Mr Gillespie took her dog.

Nine edited her response to the story in a selective and misleading way that denigrated Edwards further, and failed to carry out an investigation into the veracity of the claims, her counsel says.

A further broadcast in November also falsely reported that Gillespie would “no longer seek the return of his best mate” when in actual fact the Supreme Court had made orders declaring Ms Edwards the owner of Oscar, they say.

After joking about setting down the next hearing on the dog’s birthday so all parties could celebrate it in court, Justice Michael Wigney scheduled it for April 26, when they will debate whether Nine will be allowed to file its proposed defence.

“This whole scenario is absurd,” he said.