It was confirmed in court on Friday that Mr Jones had settled with the Brumbies board following an acrimonious dispute that proved hugely unsettling for the club.

Mr Jones spent his last day in the job on Monday, after the club paid out his contract in a bid to end the the saga outside of the ACT Supreme Court.

The board stood down Mr Jones in March, following an explosive interview on ABC Radio, in which the embattled chief executive let fly at his critics in and out of the club, and warned that if he went to war, things were "going to get ugly".

Mr Jones almost immediately took the matter to court, using the ACT's whistleblower protections in an attempt to keep himself in the job.

He argued the Brumbies were disciplining him for blowing the whistle about irregularities with the sale of the club's former Griffith headquarters and subsequent move to the University of Canberra.

He alleged a number of other parties - including the University of Canberra, UC Union, rugby great Joe Roff, and former deputy chief minister David Lamont - had applied pressure on the board to remove him for blowing the whistle.

Looming large in the dispute is an explosive and highly inflammatory KPMG report produced after the firm investigated the move to the University of Canberra.

That report was commissioned by the Brumbies board and the Australian Rugby Union, and the club made a subsequent decision to refer the "disquieting issues" it uncovered to the police.

The KPMG report has remained suppressed in the court, but has been widely distributed regardless. Justice Richard Refshauge signalled on Friday that any breaches of his orders would be dealt with severely.

Mr Jones' settlement with the Brumbies board means his case against them has concluded in the ACT Supreme Court.

But the case against the University of Canberra and the other defendants returned on Friday morning for a brief mention. Mr Jones is seeking to force them to pay damages.

Mr Jones' lawyer Rory Markham signalled he would attempt to lift suppression orders that have kept communications involving those parties secret.

Mr Markham argued his client needed to be able to protect his reputation, and the suppression orders were hindering him from doing so.

He would not actively seek to have the suppression over the KPMG report lifted, the court heard.

The defendants signalled they would oppose any move to remove those suppressions.

Justice Refshauge adjourned the case, saying Mr Jones needed to give more notice to the defendants before making an application to have the suppression orders removed.

Mr Jones will need to give two days notice to the defendants before applying to have the suppressions removed.