News location:

Monday, October 21, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Court approves $2m Lehrmann bill in ‘deal of century’

Network Ten agreed to discount the funds it was seeking from Bruce Lehrmann. (Jono Searle/AAP PHOTOS)

By Miklos Bolza in Sydney

Bruce Lehrmann is a step closer to bankruptcy having been ordered to pay $2 million to Ten in what his lawyer says might be the “deal of the century” after a spectacular defamation loss.

The 29-year-old is unlikely to ever hand over the sum after a judge noted he was “a man of modest means” with little ability to pay.

Justice Michael Lee in April found a Network Ten report on The Project in February 2021 did not defame Lehrmann when it effectively outed him as an alleged rapist.

The Federal Court judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the 29-year-old sexually assaulted Brittany Higgins in the Parliament House office of their then-boss Senator Linda Reynolds in March 2019.

On Thursday, Justice Lee finalised Ten’s bill against Lehrmann after the network agreed to discount the funds it was seeking and quickly resolve the dispute.

Ten said it had spent almost $3.7 million defending the case.

But after Justice Lee found the network had failed in one of its key defences and the firm also lost a number of preliminary legal bids, the amount payable by Lehrmann was reduced to about $3.1 million.

Ten agreed to bill Lehrmann for a flat rate of $2 million after a hefty discount was applied, the network’s barrister Zoe Graus said on Thursday.

Lehrmann, who is living in Tasmania, did not consent to or oppose the order and his lawyer Paul Svilans told the court he did not know enough about how Ten’s counsel had been paid to know whether the discounted amount was realistic.

“It might be the deal of the century, the $2 million, for all I know,” he said.

Justice Lee approved the sum, finding it was well within the amount that would have been recoverable given the complexity and length of the lawsuit.

It has previously been revealed that the 29-year-old had no financial backers in the defamation case.

He will not have to pay for his own lawyers, who were representing him on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Ten was willing to pay around $558,000 to journalist Lisa Wilkinson for her legal costs after she was also sued in the lawsuit, Ms Graus said.

The court previously heard Wilkinson would be seeking $1.8 million in costs, but uncertainty about her agreement with law firm Gillis Delaney meant her legal bill would be assessed by a referee to work out how much Ten should cover and what should be passed on to Lehrmann.

Wilkinson’s top defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC charged $8000 for each day at trial while Ten’s barrister Matt Collins KC charged $11,000.

Dr Collins’ total bill for the case came to $768,750.

In April, Justice Lee found Ten and Wilkinson’s conduct in preparing for the Project interview was unreasonable because they did not take adequate steps to investigate claims made by Ms Higgins.

In particular, they failed to examine baseless allegations that members of the Liberal party had attempted to cover up the rape allegations before a federal election.

Lehrmann has denied that any sexual activity occurred between himself and Ms Higgins, and has appealed Justice Lee’s findings against him.

Ten and Wilkinson have also lodged challenges to parts of the judge’s findings.

Lehrmann is not facing criminal charges over the incident after his trial was aborted due to juror misconduct and prosecutors declined to push forward with a retrial.

The Federal Court hearing took place on the same day Lehrmann faced a conciliation hearing in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal over a luxury Sydney property he rented as part of an exclusive TV interview deal.

His former landlord Gaenor Meakes is seeking nearly $20,000 for damage to the property and unpaid rent in a case that was transferred to the local court on Thursday because of jurisdictional issues.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Share this

2 Responses to Court approves $2m Lehrmann bill in ‘deal of century’

David says: 27 June 2024 at 1:14 pm

You’ve got to admire the Australian legal system. We’ve just had one case of potential double murder where the defendant was found guilty of one and not the other. In this case the defendant, even though they were found not to have murdered both and claimed they were both accidents, went out of their way to cover up and ensure then was minimal physical evidence to be found. i.e. not guilty of both murders but acted like you would expect someone to do by covering up what they knew would be construed as a crime scene. On any balance of probabilities you expect an attempt at a cover up, even if the person involved believes they are innocent but sees that it could be read the wrong way.

On the other hand we have someone who walked away from a potential crime, had ample opportunity to cover up, but chose not to. In this case the judge finds them guilty on the basis of probabilities because alcohol was involved despite no physical evidence and the accuser ensuring there was none. If you’re innocent there’s no value in walking away and leaving the crime scene untouched because it’s irrelevant to the decision making even if the alleged crime has to leave some traceable physical evidence behind.

And people wonder why we have such a problem with DV and people taking matters into their own hands. Irrespective of whether the perpetrators are guilty or innocent we’ve not giving them any reason to trust the system.

Reply
cbrapsycho says: 27 June 2024 at 2:02 pm

An interesting interpretation of these crimes and the actions of those involved. It’s fairly clear that you did not follow the defamation trial as you failed to see and hear the evidence against Lehrmann. Either that or you are just in denial as what happened doesn’t fit with your personal beliefs. Thankfully the judge was more objective.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews