A former AFL player and Nine News Adelaide sports presenter will likely resolve his legal dispute with the broadcaster over a COVID-19 vaccine mandate before the case reaches trial, a court has heard.
Warren Tredrea is suing his former employer Channel 9 after he was dismissed from the network when he refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine last year.
The former Port Adelaide captain was not present for his first hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday, when his lawyers told Justice Patrick O'Sullivan the parties were likely to reach a resolution.
"We envisage that at some point there will be a mediation between the parties," Mr Tredrea's lawyer Simon Ower KC told the court.
"It's likely, at least from our side of the bar table, it will be prior to litigation involving the court.
"It may be that the trial's not going to be listed for trial."
If the matter does proceed to trial, it will be heard next July.
Mr Ower told the court Mr Tredrea would be called to give evidence as part of his case, along with virologists.
"There's then likely to be possibly contest between scientific experts and virologists," Mr Ower told the court.
"That may be the most lengthy part of the trial."
But Channel 9's lawyer, Brendon Roberts KC, told the court the efficacy of the vaccine had nothing to do with Mr Tredrea's contract and was somewhat irrelevant when the trial would be held more than a year after he was dismissed.
"We are unlikely to be directly joining issue with the ultimate question of the views of virologists regarding the efficacy of the vaccination procedures that were being advocated by the Commonwealth government in particular, and the Commonwealth and state health authorities," Mr Roberts told the court.
"Our position in relation to the ability to act under the contract is that it was reasonable to act in accordance with the prevailing view of both government authorities and the scientific community as it was being relayed by health bodies.
"And ultimately the question as to whether the particular virologists might hold different views really isn't aimed at the question on whether it was reasonable to act on prevailing health views.
"We will be submitting that [the effectiveness of vaccination] is not a matter that arises under the contract between these parties."
The matter returns to court next year.
