As Bruce Lehrmann continues his appeal against the findings from his failed defamation case that he raped former Liberal staffer colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House, lawyers have argued he brought this on himself.
Network Ten is requesting the court order that Lehrmann, to continue his appeal, pay a $200,000 security to cover the organisation’s legal costs in the event his case also fails on appeal.
Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom Lehrmann was suing in the defamation case, were awarded $2 million in costs by Justice Michael Lee earlier this year.
How did we get here?
In May, Justice Michael Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann had raped former colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in March 2019. Lehrmann has always denied the allegations.
After Higgins came forward with her claims in an interview with journalist Lisa Wilkinson on Network Ten’s The Project in 2021, Lehrmann filed a defamation case, claiming that while he was not named, he was identifiable from the story.
Lehrmann had originally also filed defamation lawsuits against the ABC and News Corp. He settled ahead of the trial with News Corp, which published an interview on news.com.au between Higgins and political editor Samantha Maiden the day of the Project broadcast, as well as with the ABC, which aired a later address to the National Press Club by Higgins in which she repeated the claims.
Court documents filed by Network Ten claim Lehrmann rejected a subsequent settlement offer with the network within two hours of receiving it.
What’s the appeal about?
Lehrmann is seeking to appeal on four grounds, claiming:
- Justice Lee erred in upholding Ten’s truth defence
- Justice Lee erred in determining what the meaning of the publications was to an ordinary reasonable person
- Network Ten and Wilkinson hadn’t made out a truth defence
- Justice Lee erred in determining that if Lehrmann had been successful, he was only entitled to a mere $20,000 in damages
Matt Collins KC, appearing for Ten, said in court that some of Lehrmann’s appeal grounds were “faintly arguable”, while others were “hopeless”.
What happened in court?
Zali Burrows, acting for Lehrmann, said the application by Network Ten and Wilkinson was a “bullying tactic”, owing to Lehrmann being on a “Centrelink income”. Lehrmann has been unemployed since 2021, and the enforcement of the $2 million order would likely bankrupt him. The court heard Lehrmann was served with a bankruptcy notice on August 8, pending a decision from Justice Wendy Abraham.
Burrows described Lehrmann as “pretty much unemployable”, arguing he was “probably Australia’s most hated man”.
“He really does need his day in court”, she said.
Collins said Lehrmann has “no capacity” to pay the costs, or any order for security, which would realistically torpedo any possible appeal process. However, he said Lehrmann was “very ably represented” in the initial case, which was “a very expensive trial … conducted in the full glare of the entire nation”.
Collins said Lehrmann had “had his day in court … more than a day in court, 26 days in court”.
Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for Wilkinson, noted Lehrmann had in fact initiated the proceedings before the courts, having had a previous criminal trial in the ACT in relation to the conduct abandoned without findings against him.
“He came to this court by choice … he did so having escaped the criminal process,” Chrysanthou said.
“He chose to enter the fray,” she said.
Lehrmann was represented by Mark O’Brien Legal with a “conditional costs agreement”, often referred to as a “no-win, no-fee” deal.
“His impecuniosity did not deprive him from having his day in court,” Chrysanthou said.
“Why should he get another day in court at the cost of the respondents?”, she said.
In his judgment, Justice Lee described Lehrmann’s choice to initiate defamation proceedings following the criminal trial thus: “Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”
