Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs Former NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham is resisting moves to force him to pay the legal costs incurred by Sydney MP Alex Greenwich in suing him for defamation over an offensive tweet.In a decision in September, Federal Court Justice David O’Callaghan found Latham, now an independent NSW upper house MP, defamed Greenwich in the post on Twitter, now X, on March 30 last year. He awarded Greenwich $140,000 in damages.As a general rule, the unsuccessful party in litigation will be ordered to pay the successful party’s legal costs.Sydney MP Alex Greenwich sued for defamation over a tweet by independent MP Mark Latham.Credit: SMHGreenwich is seeking an order that Latham pay his costs on a higher-than-usual indemnity basis, which would cover about 90 per cent of his legal bill.The Federal Court in Sydney heard on Thursday that Latham is now seeking a raft of documents from Greenwich shedding light on any funding arrangement the independent MP might have had in place to cover his legal bills.Barrister Gabriella Rubagotti, acting for Latham, said that “we want to know what donations have been made” and the source of the money, and whether the money went to Greenwich’s lawyers directly or indirectly via Greenwich.Loading“Who’s donated, how much has come in, what were the legal costs, have they been fully met or not and is there a surplus,” Rubagotti said.She said that if Greenwich had received donations that covered his legal costs and the court made a costs order against Latham, then Greenwich would have “obtained really a bonus from” Latham. In the parliamentary register of disclosures to June 30 last year, Greenwich said he “received $85,000 in support for legal action from Climate 200. Funds to be returned to them and LGBTIQA+ organisations should costs be awarded”.The parties were at loggerheads on Thursday about the breadth of the categories of documents sought by Latham.Senior National Judicial Registrar Paul Farrell said that his preliminary view was that most of the categories “really do need to be narrowed somewhat” and urged them to reach an agreement.The hearing was adjourned as the parties moved to strike an agreement narrowing the range of the documents sought.A costs hearing is scheduled for December 18.
