News outlet Crikey wanted to be sued by Lachlan Murdoch and “benefited financially” from a wave of new subscribers sparked by the defamation case, a court has been told.

Fox News chief executive, Mr Murdoch, claims Crikey’s senior management made a “commercial decision” to repost an article at the centre of a legal complaint he made weeks earlier.

He is suing journalist Bernard Keane, Crikey’s editor-in-chief Peter Fray, and parent company Private Media over the article, which allegedly referred to his family as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the US Capitol riots.

The publishers deny the story defamed Mr Murdoch and are employing a recently updated public interest defence for media companies.

Crikey’s article — written by political editor Mr Keane — was first published on June 29 last year but was removed the next day after Mr Murdoch sent a concerns notice.

It was republished on August 15, with a line added, saying that had been done to “clear up recent media reports” after a story about the dispute appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald.

In the Herald story, Mr Fray said Crikey was “sick of being intimidated by Lachlan Murdoch”.

Mr Murdoch’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, today alleged in the Federal Court that this was a lie and that Crikey bosses deliberately tried to “escalate and aggravate the proceedings”.

New documents obtained by Mr Murdoch’s legal team showed that Mr Fray had texted a colleague saying “I gave [Herald reporter] Zoe Samios the intimidation line”, the court was told.

The documents also showed Private Media’s top brass had told staff they were going to repost the article on August 15, even before they were aware of the Herald story.

“What we now allege is, not only was it dishonest, it was [also] part of a pre-planned and prepared public relations campaign,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

She alleged that Private Media chairman and co-founder Eric Beecher and chief executive Will Hayward were the “guiding minds” behind the “dishonest conduct”.

Mr Murdoch has applied to add Mr Beecher and Mr Hayward as defendants in the case, and intends to sue them for “serious harm” caused by the second publication.

“It did not enter our minds that the suits, the businessmen, the non-journalists, would have been part of that editorial decision-making … and not just part of it, but the people who were behind it,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

“We now allege that the reposting was a commercial decision and not an editorial decision.”

The court was told that Crikey had sold 5,000 new subscriptions in August 2022 —  a “windfall of $500,000” — at a discounted “Lachlan Murdoch rate”.

“The commercial purpose sought to be achieved by the respondents … in increasing subscriptions, was achieved,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

“They have benefited financially from the proceedings.”

Private Media is opposing Mr Murdoch’s application to expand his case, saying the new allegations of a campaign waged by Crikey were largely the same as his original claims.

Justice Michael Wigney will make a decision on Mr Murdoch’s application this afternoon.

He said that, if Mr Murdoch was successful, the March trial date would need to be vacated.

“It puts an entirely new complexion on the case,” he said.