The Daily Telegraph has argued that articles about Geoffrey Rush published late last year “did not make any allegations” that the actor “engaged in inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature”.

But the newspaper’s defence in defamation proceedings filed by Rush will remain unknown for the time being after lawyers for the actor successfully had the document suppressed on Thursday.

In the first hearing of the defamation proceedings filed by the 66-year-old actor against the tabloid newspaper on Thursday, Rush’s barrister Richard McHugh SC successfully argued that the defence should not be released because it contained “rumours” which would do “further damage” to the actor’s reputation.

McHugh argued the defence contained “scandalous” information which went “vastly” beyond what had previously been published by the Telegraph.

Justice Michael Wigney agreed, saying protecting Rush’s reputation from further harm outweighed the public interest in releasing what he said would have to be a heavily redacted version of the defence.

During Thursday’s hearing McHugh first sought to have the Daily Telegraph’s defence struck out entirely on the basis that the defence of truth and qualified privilege was “completely inadequate” and would, he argued, be abandoned at trial.

The qualified privilege defence in defamation hearings in Australia means a publisher must show the defamatory articles were in the public interest and that it acted reasonably.

It is the same defence Fairfax Media used in its unsuccessful defence in a defamation case against cricketer Chris Gayle last year.

“How anyone could describe the headline ‘King Leer’ as a fair way of reporting an unsubstantiated complaint like that is not a serious argument that can be put,” McHugh said.

That argument won’t be heard in full until the case resumes on 19 February, but News Corp’s lawyers said the fact the more “scandalous” material in the defence was not published was “a touchstone of reasonableness”, and sought to argue that the stories published by the Daily Telegraph “did not make any allegations” of a sexual nature.

Instead, that was an “imputation” made by McHugh.

The articles in question were published by the Daily Telegraph in November and December last year.

The Sydney Theatre Company released a statement to the Daily Telegraph saying it had received a complaint against Rush from someone who accused him of “inappropriate behaviour” during the company’s staging of William Shakespeare’s King Lear two years ago. The company did not disclose details of the allegation, saying the complainant asked that the allegation be dealt with in private and did not want Rush notified or involved in any investigation.

The Daily Telegraph led its front page with the story on 30 November with the headline “King Leer”.

A second article published on 1 December with the headline “We’re with you: theatre cast back accuser as Rush denies ‘touching’” contained a denial from Rush that he “inappropriately touched” a female cast member on the production.

McHugh argued the stories were not reasonable and that they “clearly” contained a “sexual dimension”.

“The use of [the] headline ‘leer’ obviously has a sexual connotation to it and the way it is photographed ... makes it look like he’s been caught in some way,” McHugh said on Thursday.

“How anyone could describe the headline ‘King Leer’ as a fair way of reporting an unsubstantiated complaint like that is not a serious argument that can be put.”

Rush launched defamation action against News Corp and journalist Jonathon Moran last year over the two articles.

Labelling them “spurious claims with bombastic titles” at the time, a statement of claim lodged on behalf of Rush argues that the articles and headlines make a series of defamatory remarks about the actor, including that he had “engaged in scandalously inappropriate behaviour” in the theatre.

The suit claims the Daily Telegraph made Rush out to be a “pervert” and a “sexual predator” with their “King Leer” headline.

The second article could be interpreted as suggesting Rush had behaved as a “sexual predator”, had “committed sexual assault”, was “ a pervert”, had “inappropriately touched an actress” and his behaviour was so serious the STC “would never work with him again”.

McHugh also argued on Thursday that the Daily Telegraph articles linked the actor to the high-profile allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood figures Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, as well as Australian television personality Don Burke.

The second Daily Telegraph article was published alongside an article about Burke, which Rush’s lawyers allege have the effect of “falsely and unfairly” associating “the allegations against the applicant with the allegations against Mr Burke”.