Lehrmann to pay Lisa’s husband $4k

Bruce Lehrmann has agreed to stump up more than $4000 for the legal costs of Lisa Wilkinson’s husband Peter FitzSimons relating to the author’s fleeting involvement in the former political staffer’s blockbuster defamation trial.

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee earlier this month dismissed Lehrmann’s lawsuit against Ms Wilkinson and Network 10 after finding – on the balance of probabilities – that he had raped Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House.

Author and Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mr FitzSimons was subpoenaed during the case relating to Ms Higgins’ book deal with publisher Penguin Random House.

The court previously heard that Ms Higgins had been paid $108,000 for an advance for a book deal and would have received another $216,000 from Penguin Random House when she completed the project.

Last month it was revealed that Mr FitzSimons had sought an order that Lehrmann pay for his “reasonable loss or expenses” associated with his legal fees.

In documents released by the Federal Court on Friday, it was revealed Lehrmann had agreed to pay $4616 for Mr FitzSimons’ legal costs in complying with the subpoena.

The orders were made by consent and covered his losses in complying with the subpoena.

According to documents produced by Penguin Random House during the trial, Ms Higgins entered into an agreement to deliver by January 2022 a 90,000-word book described as “a memoir that covers Brittany’s courageous personal story”.

She would have been paid $325,000 for the book, according to the agreement which was signed in March 2021.

The $4616 payment is not expected to be Lehrmann’s last, with Network 10, Ms Wilkinson and the former Liberal staffer to return to court next week for a hearing to decide whether Lehrmann will be liable for more costs.

Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson have asked for Lehrmann to pay all of their legal costs, in submissions published by the Federal Court on Tuesday.

“Mr Lehrmann brought this proceeding on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis,” Network 10’s barrister Dr Matt Collins said in his submissions.

“He put Network Ten to the cost of defending this proceeding, which can be, with the benefit of hindsight, described as a clear abuse of process aimed at concealing the truth that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.”

The submissions, tendered to the Federal Court, also reveal Mr Lehrmann had been given the opportunity to walk away from the case, but had declined “almost immediately”.

Dr Collins said in his submission that Ten and Ms Wilkinson had made a “walk away” offer of compromise, that would have seen the proceedings dismissed with no admission of liability, and no order as to costs.

The offer was made on August 31, 2023, and Mr Lehrmann was given 14 days to respond.

“Mr Lehrmann rejected the offer less than two hours after it was made,” Dr Collins said.

In submissions to the court, Mr Lehrmann said Justice Lee could take a “nuanced” approach to awarding costs given that Network 10’s qualified privilege defence was not successful.

Ms Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou argued that Lehrmann should be ordered to pay for the costs of the proceeding given their truth defence was made out.

“The court has found that the applicant engaged in highly disreputable conduct connected with this proceeding,” Ms Chrysanthou wrote.

“The applicant has given false evidence and lied to this court on repeated occasions on issues material to the proceeding … This conduct, of itself, weighs against the applicant on the question of costs.”

Lehrmann’s lawyer David Helvadjian said that given Network 10’s qualified privilege defence failed, it was open to the court to make a “more nuanced cost order than is usual” and that Lehrmann only be liable for a portion of Ten and Wilkinson’s costs.

“In all the circumstances it may be an appropriate exercise of this court’s discretion to recognise the ‘success’ the respondents have enjoyed but, due to their failure with respect to the qualified privilege defences, temper that success by ordering that the applicant pay only a proportion of the respondents’ costs on the ordinary basis,” Mr Helvadjian said.

The matter will return to court next Wednesday.