Treasurer Joe Hockey is seeking “substantial damages” in his defamation case against Fairfax Media, with his lawyers arguing he must be vindicated for damage to his reputation.

Mr Hockey’s barrister, Bruce McClintock SC, told the Federal Court that Fairfax Media damaged Mr Hockey’s reputation with a story headlined “Treasurer for sale”.

He claimed Fairfax attempted to further smear the Treasurer when it cross-examined him in court last week.

• Hockey headline ‘accurate’: editor
• Joe Hockey’s super ‘debate’ – why there’s no debate
• Is there method in Hockey’s house price madness?
• Thoroughly bad idea: Turnbull defies Hockey

“The element of vindication is very important in this case and it requires substantial damages,” Mr McClintock told the court in Sydney.

Under NSW law defamation payouts are capped at $366,000.

Mr McClintock said Justice Richard White should reject the suggestion of Fairfax’s lawyers that no damages payout was needed because any judgment in Mr Hockey’s favour would be widely publicised.

Sydney Morning Herald Editor in Chief Darren Goodsir (right) arrives at the Federal Court in Sydney, during the case. Photo: AAP

He said if no damages were awarded, Fairfax could publish an article that said “Hockey wins defamation case, reputation worthless”.

Mr Hockey is suing Fairfax Media for defamation over the May 5, 2014 article which investigated the North Sydney Forum, a Liberal Party fundraising organisation in Mr Hockey’s electorate of North Sydney.

The article detailed how the NSF offered attendance at lunches and VIP events with Mr Hockey to people who paid membership fees of up to $22,000.

The membership fees go to the Liberal Party as donations.

Mr Hockey said the story, which appeared in the Fairfax newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and online, suggested he was corrupt and could be bought.

Fairfax claimed the story did not imply Mr Hockey was corrupt but was focused on the desirability of the system of political donations.

Lawyer seeks to have Treasurer’s cross-examination struck out

Mr McClintock on Tuesday sought to have Mr Hockey’s cross-examination struck out as evidence, saying the questioning of the treasurer by Fairfax’s counsel about the North Sydney Forum had been a “deliberate attempt” to smear his client.

He said the conduct of the court case had carried on a campaign by Fairfax against Mr Hockey and should be seen as “a classic case of malice”.

Mr McClintock said Fairfax’s submission that Mr Hockey’s feelings were not hurt by the article should be disregarded because the suggestion had not been put directly to the Treasurer in court.

He said Fairfax counsel Matthew Collins QC had suggested that Mr Hockey “can give it” but “can’t take it”, however he had never put the submission to him in court.

Mr McClintock also said Dr Collins’s submission that Mr Hockey had given evidence “like a politician” was another attempted smear.

The hearing has now ended and Justice Richard White has reserved his decision.