Lehrmann’s Centrelink woes revealed

Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyers failed to meet two key deadlines, with the fate of the former political staffer’s appeal against his devastating defamation loss to be decided next month.

Network 10’s lawyers requested the matter be listed in Federal Court before Justice Wendy Abraham on Friday, with Lehrmann’s lawyer putting the missed deadline down to the fact he had filed to receive a $117,000 refund from his lawyers and was on Centrelink.

Lehrmann has launched an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court after losing his high-stakes lawsuit over Ms Wilkinson’s 2021 The Project interview with Brittany Higgins.

Justice Michael Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann sexually assaulted Ms Higgins inside the office of Senator Linda Reynolds in Parliament House on the morning of March 23, 2019 following a night out drinking in Canberra.

Ten’s lawyers earlier this year filed an application asking the court to order that Lehrmann deposit $200,000 as a security for their legal costs for the appeal to go ahead.

The court heard that Ms Burrows had not filed evidence in relation to the security for costs application and an amended notice of appeal.

According to orders made by Justice Abraham in July, Lehrmann’s legal team were required to file and serve the evidence by last Thursday.

“The reasons the first respondent requested the listing is because there’s been a default on the order made by Your Honour on the 25th of July,” Ten’s barrister Tim Senior told the court on Friday.

$200,000 SECURITY

Mr Lehrmann’s solicitor Zali Burrows has sought an order for a stay on the $2m costs order made against Lehrmann following his defamation suit loss.

In June, Lehrmann was ordered to pay Network Ten $2m for their legal costs following the failed defamation case.

The court was previously told Lehrmann could be forced into bankruptcy if he couldn’t meet the costs order.

Ten asked that Lehrmann pay a $200,000 surety to to secure Network 10’s legal costs in the event he is unsuccessful in his appeal.

They made an application for the Federal Court to permanently stay the appeal proceedings if he cannot deposit the surety within 42 days.

No order has been made yet, and the court was earlier this year told that Lehrmann’s legal team would argue against the application at a hearing scheduled for October 14.

Mr Senior told the court that Lehrmann’s legal team had provided no explanation why the amended appeal and the evidence relating to the $200,000 surety had not been filed by the deadline.

The matters are due to be argued at an interlocutory hearing on October 14, and Mr Senior said he was worried that their failure to meet the deadline could impact the hearing.

“We’re concerned about the impact on this timetable for the security and stay application,” Mr Senior said.

“If we get an amended notice of appeal with 100 new grounds, that’s bound to affect the issues for consideration on those applications.”

CENTRELINK

Ms Burrows on Friday put the delay down to an argument Lehrmann had with his former solicitors, following the settlement of previous lawsuits against News Life Media and the ABC.

The court previously heard that Lehrmann had an agreement with his former solicitors, Mark O’Brien Legal, to defend him on a no-win, no-fee basis.

She said that after the settlements, money went into his previous lawyers’ trust account.

And from that, costs and disbursements were paid to Ten after he lost his high-profile defamation suit.

“The issue now is that there was about $117,000 which were paid for Ten’s costs out of the trust account funds,” Ms Burrows said.

“Which we say were not payable on the conditional costs agreement and there were a lot of moneys paid in hearing allocation fees and filing fees to which my client didn’t have to pay at the time because he was on Centrelink.”

She said she was now seeking a costs assessment on his former lawyers.

But Justice Abraham said she couldn’t deal with the matter because it did not relate to the appeal and concerned matters in the court below.

“What has this got to me with me? This is an appeal,” Justice Abraham said.

Ms Burrows said the money was needed so she could brief barrister Guy Reynolds SC, who it was proposed would draft the amended appeal.

“You want this court - as in me - to deal with a matter that you haven’t yet filed before the registrar so that - one assumes - you succeed in that matter so that you can brief somebody … and we’re not going to get the amended grounds until after that,” Justice Abraham said.

Ms Burrows said she could write a draft amended appeal and wait for the money so that Mr Reynolds could produce the final amended appeal.

Ultimately, Justice Abraham on Friday gave Lehrmann’s legal team an extension to file the evidence relating to the security for costs application and their notice of appeal.

They were given until 4pm to file their evidence relating to the $200,000 security for costs, and until the end of next week to file their amended notice of appeal.

The matter will return to court on October 14.

THE APPEAL

Lehrmann lodged his appeal in May, having consistently denied sexually assaulting his former colleague.

In a notice of appeal filed with the court, Lehrmann claims he was denied procedural fairness and challenged Justice Lee’s findings.

He has claimed that Justice Lee made findings that were neither advanced by Ten and Ms Wilkinson nor put to him in cross examination.

As well, he argued that Justice Lee should not have made his findings because Ms Higgins had “significant credibility problems” and he did not properly apply the “Brigginshaw principle”.

According to the “Briginshaw” principle, in civil cases involving serious allegations, courts are required to make findings at a higher standard.

THE TRIAL

The former Liberal staffer sued Ten and Ms Wilkinson over her interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in which the former political staffer said that she was raped by a former colleague.

In a landmark ruling, Justice Lee in April found, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins, dismissing Mr Lehrmann’s lawsuit.

Justice Lee said “it is more likely than not” that Lehrmann was “so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins’ consent, and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented.”

Justice Lee said of Lehrmann’s decision to sue for defamation after criminal proceedings were abandoned: “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”

It is unclear whether Mr Lehrmann has the funds for an appeal – the court has previously heard he has been unemployed since 2021 and is a legal student.

Lehrmann has consistently denied sexually assaulting Ms Higgins.

He faced trial in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022 after pleading not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent.

The trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct and the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charges due to concerns about Ms Higgins’ welfare.