Justice Kim Hargrave on Tuesday said Hird had failed to establish any of his claims and he formally dismissed the case.

Hird, 43, who was not in court for the decision, had sued Chubb Insurance for refusing to pay his legal bills of close to $660,000.

Chubb had denied liability, saying Hird was covered for legal costs for defending himself against an action but not for the costs of bringing an action against others.

The civil trial centred on Hird's failed bid to have the 2013 joint investigation by the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) into the Bombers' 2012 supplements program declared unlawful.

The Federal Court rejected Hird's application but he then decided to go it alone and had his lawyers appeal the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The appeal was unanimously dismissed in January 2015.

In Hird's writ filed in the Supreme Court, his lawyers demanded Chubb Insurance pay his Federal Court trial costs of $572,691.25 and the Full Court appeal costs of $86,828.75, a total of $659,520.

James Hird outside the Supreme Court after an earlier hearing.  Photo: Eddie Jim

Describing Hird as having been a "famous player" for Essendon, the judge said on Tuesday that one of the key issues in the case was the meeting Hird had had with the AFL and ASADA on April 16, 2013, over the joint investigation into the use of prohibited substances involving Essendon.

Justice Hargrave accepted Chubb's claim that Hird had failed to link his attendance at the meeting where he answered more than 1300 questions with his decision to go to the Federal Court on June 30, 2014, and then appeal to the Full Court.

The judge said Hird refused during the civil trial against Chubb to provide the transcript of the April 16, 2013, interview and the details of the 'show cause' notices to the 34 Essendon players, saying it was subject to confidentiality orders in the Federal Court proceeding.

Justice Hargrave said no evidence of those confidentiality orders was provided to him and no explanation was given as to why the documents which could have helped Hird's case could not be tendered in the civil trial.

"Mr Hird's own evidence establishes only that he decided to commence his Federal Court application and appeal because he wanted 'to protect his reputation and position as coach of Essendon', to 'protect or advance his continued employment related to the AFL', and thus to protect his primary source of income at that time and in the future," Justice Hargrave said.

"In other words, Mr Hird's motive in commencing and maintaining his Federal Court application and appeal was his fear of damage to his reputation and economic interests arising from the show cause notices served by ASADA on the players and the events consequent on those notices."

The judge said that motive did not prove Hird's case that Chubb should have paid his legal bills.

During the civil trial in February, Mr Hird revealed a mystery benefactor had paid off a $750,000 debt he owed to the ASADA.

Hird had been ordered to pay ASADA'S court costs after losing his fight to stop the investigation into the supplements saga but the court was told the debt had been paid by another unnamed party.

Questioned by barrister Jim Peters, QC, representing Chubb, Hird agreed his ASADA debt had been paid by "somebody else".

No details were given as to who had picked up the tab for Hird. Essendon denied being the mystery benefactor.

In his witness statement, Hird claimed he decided to go ahead with the Full Court appeal after receiving a legal opinion from Essendon's senior counsel, Neil Young, QC, and barrister Catherine Button that the reasons for the Federal Court judgment were "deeply flawed", that the judgment contained numerous errors and the appeal would succeed. Essendon decided not to pursue the matter further.