Hal Hunter at Essendon training in 2012. Credit:Paul Rovere Dr Stevens claimed the club was using its treatment of her son as a way to warn other players not to sue. Any who did, she said, would be fought all the way. She described the club's attempt to force a 22-year-old to pay thousands of dollars in court costs as "grubby and petty". Mr Hunter's case came before Associate Justice Nemeer Mukhtar on Wednesday after Essendon's lawyers applied for Mr Hunter to pay their legal costs over last year's court case where the former rookie player had sought documents from both the club and the AFL over the supplements program to help him decide if he should sue. Hal Hunter playing for Essendon's VFL team in 2013. Credit:Ken Irwin

In a judgment handed down in November last year, Associate Justice Mukhtar ordered the AFL to hand over all its relevant documents but accepted Essendon's claims the club had already given every document it had relating to the supplements saga to Mr Hunter's lawyers. During the hearing the heavily bearded Mr Hunter - whose Facebook page says is now a "junior tattooer at Vintique Tattoos, Mordialloc" - sat behind his lawyer with his parents, dressed in an expensive-looking suit and tie. Mr Hunter's lawyers had claimed both Essendon and the AFL owed the rookie player a duty of care when he was a contracted player with the Bombers from December 2011 before being delisted in September 2013. Mr Hunter — who says he is now worried about his health, safety and wellbeing after being subjected to the supplements program run by biochemist Stephen Dank — claimed he did not know what exactly was in the substances injected into him. After winning their case following the hearing on October 29 last year, Essendon demanded Mr Hunter pay its legal costs for the months leading up to the hearing.

Mr Hunter's Facebook page says he is now a 'junior tattooer at Vintique Tattoos, Mordialloc'. Credit:Eddie Jim But Associate Justice Mukhtar on Wednesday decided Hunter should only have to pay the club's costs for the one-day hearing. Professor Keyzer said Essendon was on the one hand claiming it cared for the welfare of its players while on the other hand it was trying to make it as difficult as possible for them in the courtroom. Barrister Kieran O'Brien, for the AFL, had earlier told the court any documents relating to Hunter on its database would be provided to his lawyers. Mr O'Brien said it had also been agreed between the parties and lawyers for former Essendon coach James Hird that Mr Hunter could have access to the transcript of the interview between Hird and the Australian Sports Anti-doping Authority in 2013.

The barrister said Hird's lawyers had asked to be able to delete any information given during the interview relating to his "personal health issues" before handing over the transcript and that Mr Hunter sign a confidentiality agreement not to disclose any information about the interview. Mr O'Brien said the AFL did not want to argue the issue of legal costs at this stage until Mr Hunter's lawyers had had a chance to go through all the documents and decide what action to take. "In an age of combat, that's a refreshing attitude," Associate Mukhtar said. Barrister Anthony Young, for Essendon, told the court that given Mr Hunter had lost his case against the club it was a matter of law that he should pay their legal costs.