Former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann's Federal Court defamation case against Network Ten will be reopened after new evidence emerged.

Justice Michael Lee had arranged to deliver his judgment this week, before the network made its last-minute application.

The defamation case was launched after Mr Lehrmann's trial over the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins was abandoned with no findings against him.

He has taken aim at Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over an interview on The Project when Ms Higgins alleged she had been raped, even though she did not name him.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Network Ten convinced the court it should hear evidence from Taylor Auerbach, a former producer from Seven Network's Spotlight program, which aired interviews with Mr Lehrmann.

Justice Michael Lee has adjourned the case until Thursday, to hear evidence from Mr Auerbach.

He has also formally vacated the sitting for the delivery of his judgment, which had also been listed for Thursday.

The new evidence concerns questions over how the Seven Network obtained some of its material.

The court heard it includes a lengthy extract of Brittany Higgins's phone records, containing messages between her and her former partner, Ben Dillaway, as well as an audio recording of a meeting between Ms Higgins and the Network Ten team.

The material was included in an electronic brief of evidence but was not tendered in Mr Lehrmann's criminal trial.

The usual practice is that evidence obtained in such a way should not be used for any other purpose.

Ms Wilkinson's barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, raised the matter during directions hearings for the defamation case, after Mr Lehrmann's first interview with the Spotlight program went to air in June last year.

On Tuesday afternoon, in a hastily arranged hearing, Network Ten's barrister Matthew Collins said he proposed to call Mr Auerbach to testify that Mr Lehrmann provided the material.

Mr Lehrmann has always denied he gave the material to the Seven Network, and his lawyers argued last year there was a wide pool of people who had access to it.

Mr Collins said if Mr Auerbach's evidence were accepted, it would amount to "an outrageous contempt of court" by Mr Lehrmann to have denied providing the material under oath, when he was cross-examined during the trial last year.

Mr Lehrmann's barrister Matthew Richardson argued it would be "inappropriate" to reopen the case on that basis, when the court had already heard significant evidence in the five-week trial.

"This stuff is trivial, it's just not relevant," Mr Richardson said.

He sought to downplay the significance of the possibility of the court finding Mr Lehrmann had lied about providing the material to the Seven Network.

Justice Michael Lee said there was "intense public interest" in managing the case with transparency and granted Network Ten's application.

"This is clearly fresh evidence," he said.

"It may or may not be material, at the end of the day, to the determination of the proceedings.

"I think the delay [to the judgment] … would be relatively minimal in the scheme of things."