Fresh blow as Lehrmann to cough up for Ten, Lisa

Bruce Lehrmann has been ordered to pay a lion’s share of Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson’s legal fees, possibly pushing him into bankruptcy, following his “fanciful” failed defamation lawsuit.

Mr Lehrmann was last month dealt a devastating blow when Justice Michael Lee ruled in favour of the broadcaster and the high-profile journalist following their blockbuster trial.

The former Liberal staffer sued over Ms Wilkinson’s The Project interview with Brittany Higgins on February 15, 2021 in which she alleged she had been raped by a colleague inside Parliament House after a night out drinking.

Justice Lee upheld Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s truth defence, finding it more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann was “hellbent on having sex” with Ms Higgins and that “he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on”.

He on Friday afternoon deemed that Mr Lehrmann was liable to pay most of Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s legal fees after making a costs order in their favour.

“Mr Lehrmann defended the criminal charge on a false basis, lied to police, and then allowed that lie to go uncorrected before the jury,” Justice Lee said on Friday.

“He wrongly instructed his senior counsel to cross-examine a complainant of sexual assault, in two legal proceedings, including, relevantly for present purposes, this case, on a knowingly false premise.”

The combined legal costs of all parties for the trial has been estimated to be about $10m.

The court has heard Mr Lehrmann has not been employed since mid 2021 and he is now a law student.

He could be forced into bankruptcy if he cannot meet the costs order, the court has previously heard.

In a judgment handed down on Friday afternoon, Justice Lee ordered that Lehrmann pay Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s costs relating to their qualified privilege defence – which failed – on an ordinary basis.

He also ordered Lehrmann pay their costs relating to their truth defence – which was upheld – on an indemnity basis.

Justice Lee, however, ordered that Mr Lehrmann would not be liable for their legal fees relating to a series of affidavits.

Indemnity costs relate to all costs reasonably incurred in defending a case.

Ordinary costs are based off a predetermined schedule.

It’s understood the indemnity ruling could increase the bill for Lehrmann by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The exact amount of costs to be paid will be referred to a referee, who will prepare a report, with the case to return to court on May 27.

Mr Lehrmann will not have to pay his own lawyers’ fees, with the court hearing earlier this week that his agreement with Mark O’Brien Legal was on a no-win, no-fee basis.

The court also heard earlier this week that Mr Lehrmann did not have any secret financial backers.

Had it been revealed that Mr Lehrmann had a financier, Ten could have applied to make a third party costs order.

Justice Lee on Friday described Mr Lehrmann’s lawsuit as “misconceived” because Network Ten were able to prove the truth of the claims made in the broadcast.

He said that Mr Lehrmann “ran a primary case premised upon the fanciful and knowingly false premise that in the early hours of 23 March 2019, he was preoccupied with noting up details as to French submarine contracts.”

However he noted that he made “mixed findings” in relation to Ten after the qualified privilege defence failed.

“Although the respondents (Ten and Ms Wilkinson) legally justified their imputation of rape, their conduct was not justifiable in any broader sense,” Justice Lee said.

In his verdict handed down last month, Justice Lee said that “the allegation of rape was the minor theme” of the broadcast and the allegation of political cover-up “was the major motif”.

He added that “the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts”.

Court documents published by the court reveal that Ms Higgins’ partner David Sharaz pitched the story to Ms Wilkinson with an email headed “MeToo, Liberal Party, Project Pitch”

“The credulous approach taken as to the allegations pitched by Mr Sharaz – and as to Ms Higgins’ credit generally – lacked both rigour and objectivity,” Justice Lee said.

The court heard that in March 2023, Ms Higgins’ lawyers sent an email to Ten’s counsel stating that she would not act as their witness if they offered to settle with Mr Lehrmann.

The email said she would aid Ten’s case on the condition it “will not offer Lehrmann a payment of damages or a retraction of the defamatory statements or an apology or costs (or any other relief) to settle the civil claims commenced by Lehrmann”.

In August last year Ten and Ms Wilkinson made an offer to settle the lawsuit on a “walk away” basis in which the proceedings would have been dismissed and there would be no costs order between the parties.

That offer was rejected in less than two hours, the court heard.

Lehrmann has also been granted an extension of time, until the end of the month, to decide whether he will launch an appeal.

Lehrmann’s lawyer David Helvadjian previously told the court that Lehrmann had hired senior counsel and was considering appealing.

Ordinarily parties have 28 days to lodge a notice of appeal — meaning Lehrmann’s deadline to appeal was due to expire on May 13 — however the court has allowed him until May 31.

Lehrmann 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 charge after aborting a retrial due to concerns about Ms Higgins’ welfare.

Lehrmann has maintained his innocence.