SEVEN months after former Seven West Media executive assistant Amber Harrison went public with her affair with Seven CEO Tim Worner, the bitter dispute’s court battle is expected to have its final legal chapter on Monday, when Justice John Sackar makes orders on the dispute in The NSW Supreme Court.

It follows the collapse of mediation — the third between Seven and Harrison — over the fallout of her affair with Worner which began in 2012, and once it ended, exploded spectacularly into a three-year-battle over Harrison’s departure.

The costly battle has bounced in and out of various courts, and saw Seven’s share price fall amid the lewd revelations, a public apology from Worner, censure from the Board after an independent investigation, and an interim — soon to be permanent — gag order placed on Harrison in a war of legal attrition she calls “lawfare” and has warned will leave her bankrupt.

How did it come to this?

GOING PUBLIC

Harrison came to national attention in December 2016, when, just before Christmas she sensationally emailed news organisations details of an extramarital affair with Worner, including claims of cover-ups, credit card misuse and bullying within the organisation.

The affair had begun in 2012 and lasted about two years. When it ended, things got messy.

“I knew he was married. It was never about love. It was about sex and power,” Harrison said in December, as she made public lewd text message exchanges between her and Worner, alleged they’d met during work hours to have sex, that they'd snorted cocaine together, and that she had been pushed out of her job after the affair ended.

She claimed she suffered from distress, shame and panic attacks after she was forced to work out of the same office as Worner.

Seven West Media acknowledged the affair, but subsequently launched an investigation into some of the other allegations against Worner, including drug use at company events.

Seven claimed they and Ms Harrison had agreed to confidentiality and “mutual non-disparagement”, without admissions of wrongdoing, and she had violated that agreement.

She claimed they hadn’t honoured their side of it, forcing her to go public.

Seven said Harrison had been exited from the company over credit card misuse.

As the claims and counterclaims played out in public, Seven’s share price took a hit, Worner publicly apologised, Seven lawyered up to suppress the names of four other women Harrison claimed he’d also had affairs with, and chairman Kerry Stokes had made it clear the conduct was “completely unacceptable” but affirmed Worner would stay on as CEO.

WORNER CLEARED OF “MISCONDUCT”

In early February, Seven’s investigation cleared Worner of any serious misconduct.

In a letter to the Australian Stock Exchange, the Board said it was satisfied there were no irregularities in Mr Worner’s credit card use, he had not had inappropriate relationships with other staff members and that it could not substantiate allegations of illicit drug use made by Harrison.

There were “no grounds to take any further disciplinary action” and the board is “confident that Mr Worner will continue to run the company in the interests of all shareholders”, the Board said.

Worner had been “disciplined by the Chairman [Kerry Stokes] and the Board and provided an undertaking this behaviour will not be repeated, as well as an apology”.

“This has been a tumultuous time for the entire company and with the receipt of the independent review this matter can now be brought to a conclusion,” the statement read.”

Harrison termed the investigation a “whitewash, saying it was a “green light to male executives to prey on female staff”.

If Seven wanted a “conclusion”, she wasn’t done yet.

GAG ORDER

In February, as Harrison released a flood of documents. letters and receipts via Twitter which she said supported her case, Seven won an interim injunction to stop her.

“It became clear late last week that Ms Harrison is now releasing or divulging commercial ‘in confidence’ emails and other documents that she has no right to hold, access or release,” Seven submitted.

“These documents extend beyond the scope of the other dispute Ms Harrison has with SWM.”

Gagged, Harrison took the documents off Twitter, and changed her Twitter handle to read “under a suppression order” as the court dates continued.

PUBLIC PRESSURE

Meanwhile, the public pressure was not going away.

In April, Worner, an AFL lover, resigned from his position on the Board of the Sydney Swans.

As the negative publicity continued, it was reported several women at the AFL club had questioned the Swans board over Worner continuing to hold the position. After missing the first home match of the season, he stepped down.

“My hope is that by standing down, I can relieve pressure on the board and the club and let them concentrate on the business of football, and a successful home and away season in 2017,” he said in a statement.

THE LOGIES

The temporary gag order remained in place, but while Harrison wasn’t talking, and Seven certainly wasn’t, the problem wasn’t going away.

At Australian television’s biggest night in April, the annual Logies, host David Hughes took aim during the opening monologue.

Worner was not in the room — he had an overseas commitment, Seven said — but that didn’t stop Hughes mentioning the elephant in it.

The skewering opened with mention of actress Jessica Marais, star of TV shows The Wrong Girl and Love Child.

“She is up for two shows. She is up for Channel Nine’s Love Child and Channel Seven’s The Wrong Girl,” Hughes said.

“Oh, Channel Ten, sorry. No, sorry. Channel Ten, sorry. Channel Seven were working on a pilot of The Wrong Girl, that was starring their CEO Tim Worner, and ... That was more a reality show,” he said as the crowd gasped.

“He picked the wrong girl to mess with. It was going really well, but they thought it was too expensive and they tried to cancel it. I’ve never worked on Channel Seven and I probably never will!”

WALKING AWAY

“I have made a realistic assessment of the court case and am choosing not to run it on Monday. I’ve asked my legal team not to represent me,” she said via Twitter, saying mediation talks had broken down because she would not agree to a public apology of express “regret”.

She then apologised via Twitter to the four women she had named.

Negotiations broke down this morning because I refused to put my name to a broad public "apology" and expression of "regret" — Amber Harrison (@_Amber_Harrison) July 7, 2017

Here now, I publicly apologise to the women for their names being made public. This was an apology I was always willing to make — Amber Harrison (@_Amber_Harrison) July 7, 2017

This morning,I offered to consent to the suppression order with no public apology or payment.But a clean break for us all.This was rejected — Amber Harrison (@_Amber_Harrison) July 7, 2017

I have made a realistic assessment of the court case and am choosing not to run it on Monday. I've asked my legal team not to represent me. — Amber Harrison (@_Amber_Harrison) July 7, 2017

Seven West Media said it was “ready to go in court on Monday”.

It was seeking six declarations and orders, including one that Harrison pay their legal costs and another that she declare she was in breach of several confidentiality agreements she signed back in 2014.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court hearing began with Seven tendering emails allegedly showing Harrison tried to destroy the reputation of a radio executive with whom she’d also had an affair, saying it showed “a previous act of vindictive revenge in which she boasts of orchestrating to humiliate and harm a person with whom she had a relationship in the media industry.”

Seven silk Dr Andrew Bell accused Ms Harrison of being a person of “huge malice and enormous arrogance and vindictiveness”.

Harrison was not in court, followed proceedings via social media.

She tweeted: “The irony is I consented (aside from the request for costs) to the proposed court orders they seek (sic) last night — so who has the sour grapes?”

Justice John Sackar said he wanted to hear from Harrison.

“SEVEN WANTED TO RUN A TRIAL”

Two days of phone hook-ups, attempted statements from Harrison ruled inadmissable, and sent to be redrafted, followed.

In the eventual approved statement, Harrison said it was Seven’s decision to run the “trial”, so they should pay for their own legal costs.

She said Seven was chasing money that did not exist, and costs would force her into bankruptcy:

“We are all here because Seven wanted to run a trial. The cost of this trial was unnecessary. I instructed my lawyers not to run it to save cost and made every attempt to resolve the

issues with Seven,” saying Seven’s “pockets for litigation are deep and their appetite for it endless”.

“I again, here today, invite Seven to reach a workable solution with me. I agreed on Sunday to the court orders Seven seek. Seven choose to run this trial and they should pay for it.

Dr Bell said Ms Harrison’s statement contained “at least 12 wrong, false or misconceived statements and is marked by a very high degree of revisionism”.

He said it was “code for I have flagrantly breached my contractual obligations”, and argued Ms Harrison repeatedly breached confidentiality agreements that “she was paid to uphold”.

Harrison said Seven was getting “everything they want in this process”.

“They are getting their injunction, their trial win and all the orders they seek” and attacked Seven’s “marathon three-year, brutal and unnecessarily protracted legal process”.

“I should not be punished by the court system for taking a stand,” she said, asking the judge to dismiss the claim for costs and order a “walk away” for both parties.

On Monday at 2pm, Harrison and Seven, will find out — in dollar terms at least — just what this messy battle has cost them.

In the court of public opinion, the jury remains out.