On Thursday, the verdict will be handed down in the Geoffrey Rush defamation case.

Some of Australia’s most recognisable actors have testified in the high-profile case. It has been a long process, with constantly changing defences, surprise witnesses and the confusing intricacies of Australia’s unique defamation laws.

What is the trial all about?

Geoffrey Rush is suing the News Corp-owned Daily Telegraph newspaper over an article that alleged he sexually harassed and inappropriately touched a female co-star during a Sydney theatre production of King Lear.

What was actually printed?

The article was published on 30 November 2017, with the headline “King Leer”.

It said the Sydney Theatre Company had received an anonymous complaint against Rush that he “engaged in inappropriate behaviour” during the run of King Lear in 2015 and 2016.

The article did not contain further details. Rush immediately denied the allegation. The Daily Telegraph published the article without permission from the complainant – who had never wanted to go public.

What are the legal issues?

Rush claims the Daily Telegraph’s article conveyed the imputation that he is a “pervert”, a “sexual predator” and “committed sexual assault” (and more).

He will win the case if he proves these implications were conveyed by the article and are not true.

The Daily Telegraph is arguing the defence of truth.

It has submitted evidence from the complainant and from other actors that Rush did a range of things that it alleges constitute being a “sexual predator” and similar. It says that in one rehearsal, Rush “hovered his hands” above his co-star’s chest while her eyes were closed and “made groping gestures in the air with two cupped hands intended to simulate groping and fondling breasts”.

The complainant, Eryn Jean Norvill, played Cordelia, the daughter of Rush’s King Lear. She told the court: “He was stroking, gesturing up and down my torso [and] groping above my breasts ... and kind of raising his eyebrows, bulging his eyes, smiling, licking his lips.”

Norvill also said Rush “traced across” her breast with his hand on a different day, put his hand under her shirt on her lower back – also on a different day – and sent her a text that said he thought of her “more than is socially appropriate”.

Why is so much evidence being given that wasn’t in the article?

When assessing the defence of truth, the judge does not look at whether that proof was in the original article.

The question is whether the imputations – that Rush was a “pervert”, “predator” and committed sexual assault during the King Lear production – are true in general. Thus both sides can put forward evidence that wasn’t in the article.

What are the punishments for both sides?

Defamation lawsuits can only result in damages – that is, money – being awarded. Neither party can be sentenced to prison time if they lose.

If Rush wins, he will get compensation for the harm the article did to his reputation. This can include estimates of future acting jobs. He has also applied for “aggravated damages”, which awards more money if the judge finds the Daily Telegraph acted unreasonably or maliciously in publishing.

If the Daily Telegraph wins, it will be awarded costs.

In its closing submission, the Daily Telegraph’s lawyer said that if the paper loses, it will oppose the application for aggravated damages, but won’t oppose paying compensation.

The size of the payout is up to the judge.

What were the key moments?

It has been a long and drawn-out court process.

• December 2017: Rush launches his defamation action.

• February 2018: The Daily Telegraph submits its (first) defence – and more details emerge. It is here that the court hears allegations that Rush “inappropriately touched” Norvill on stage, on five occasions, and that he followed her into a bathroom during a party, and stood outside her cubicle until she told him to “fuck off”.

• March: The judge, Justice Michael Wigney, throws out the entirety of the Daily Telegraph’s truth defence because it lacked detail. At this point, Norvill had refused to testify for the Daily Telegraph. Without the truth defence, it is highly likely that the newspaper will lose the case.

• 3 August: Norvill agrees to testify. She provides a written statement with further examples and allegations against Rush. With Norvill’s cooperation, the newspaper has enough evidence to submit a new, amended truth defence. Previously, the Daily Telegraph had published the initial story against her wishes, and without asking for permission. Norvill had never wanted her complaint made public.

• 22 October: The trial begins. Rush testifies, saying the articles had rendered him sleepless and caused distress to his wife and children. “It’s been the worst 11 months of my life,” he says.

• 24 October: On day three of the trial, the Daily Telegraph’s barrister, Tom Blackburn SC , alleges that Rush put his hand under Norvill’s shirt and “stroked his fingers on and just above the line of her jeans”, until Norvill told him “please stop that”. Rush says this is untrue.

• 25 October: A roll call of Australian theatre stars come to Rush’s defence. Neil Armfield, the director of King Lear, testifies that he did not notice anything “creepy” from Rush. Earlier, the Daily Telegraph said Armfield himself told Rush off for his behaviour with Norvill, saying that the scene was “creepy and unclear”. The newspaper alleges that Armfield told Rush to be “more paternal” and less “creepy”. But on the witness stand, Armfield denies ever saying this. “I’ve already said I have no memory of such a note,” he says.

• 29 October: Acclaimed actor Robyn Nevin, who was also in the King Lear cast, also defends Rush, saying she never saw inappropriate behaviour. Nevin says that Norvill once came to her, crying, complaining about “the trouble with Geoffrey”. But Nevin said she interpreted this to mean “the trouble she was having with [acting the role of] Cordelia”. The Daily Telegraph alleges that Norvill had indeed told Nevin about sexual harassment, but Nevin denies this.

• 30 October: Norvill testifies. She says the cast of senior actors and friends of Rush were “complicit” in endorsing his behaviour, and “pressured” her to put up with it. She says there was a “daily” pattern of “sexual harassment” from Rush that made her feel “belittled” and “trapped”. “I was at the bottom of the rung in terms of hierarchy and Geoffrey was definitely at the top,” she says. “I was looking at a room that was complicit, my director didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so I felt quashed in terms of my ability to find allies.”

• 1 November: Mark Leonard Winter, a fellow cast member in King Lear, says he saw Rush cup Norvill’s breast. “I saw Geoffrey’s hand cupping around the bottom of EJ’s breast, which was something I hadn’t seen before on stage,” he says.

• 2-6 November: The Witness X saga. On 2 November, the Daily Telegraph makes a last-minute application to add a new witness to the case. The witness’s name is suppressed, so the judge calls them “Witness X”. The Telegraph says Witness X has new information of Rush being “a pervert” and “sexual predator”, which would prove the truth of its reporting. Rush brings in a third barrister – Kieran Smark SC – to oppose Witness X’s evidence being allowed. Four days later, Wigney says Witness X is not allowed, because the allegations had nothing to do with the 2016 King Lear production.

• 8 November: The final day of the trial. Wigney starts work on the decision.

What kinds of ruling could the judge make?

Without predicting who wins the case, there are a range of different rulings the judge could make.

When someone sues for defamation, they have to lay out what the particular negative imputations are that they are fighting. As we’ve seen, in this case Rush says the article implied he was “a pervert”, “a sexual predator” and committed sexual assault during the production.

There are three questions that the judge has to ask.

The first is whether these imputations were in fact conveyed by the article. The Daily Telegraph denies that its article’s words and photo even conveyed that Rush was “a pervert” and similar.

Wigney must look at each imputation and decide whether it was conveyed (in the mind of the “ordinary, reasonable reader”). It’s not technically a legal defence – but the Telegraph will win if Wigney rules that none of the imputations were conveyed.

The second question is whether the imputations, if conveyed, are defamatory – that is, if they will they damage Rush’s reputation. This will likely not be an issue, as the Telegraph has admitted that if conveyed, the allegations are clearly defamatory.

Finally, if the above are conveyed, the last decision is whether the Daily Telegraph has a defence – namely the truth defence.

According to the legislation, something does not need to be wholly true, but rather “substantially true”. The bar is set as “on the balance of probabilities” – lower than the bar in criminal trials of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

It’s important to note that each imputation can be ruled on separately. For example, it’s possible that the truth defence will be approved for the imputation that Rush is “a pervert”, but not that he “committed sexual assault”. This means Rush would be paid out damages for some of the imputations, but not all of them.

Could there be an appeal?

No matter what happens, an appeal is very likely over the costs – coming from either party.

Both parties could also appeal over the verdict – but only if they believe the judge made an error of law, not of fact.

An example of an error of law is if the judge misinterpreted how the defence of truth worked, and gave it a higher bar for proof than it should have had.