Add Category
Court documents have revealed Bruce Lehrmann refused an offer to settle with Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson before his failed defamation case had begun hearings.
Last week, Justice Michael Lee found on the balance of probabilities Mr Lehrmann did rape Brittany Higgins at Parliament House after a night out drinking in 2019.
The finding put an end to the defamation case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, who had argued a defence of truth.
But the judge did find the interview on The Project, in which Ms Higgins alleged she had been raped, did defame Mr Lehrmann, even though he was not named.
Mr Lehrmann launched the action after his ACT Supreme Court trial was abandoned with no criminal findings against him.
The Federal Court has now released costs submissions from Ten, Mr Lehrmann and Lisa Wilkinson.
None of the submissions released today mention a figure, but Network Ten is asking for all costs from August last year.
"Mr Lehrmann brought this proceeding on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis," the submissions say.
"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."
In its submission revealed today, Network Ten says a "walk away" offer was made to Mr Lehrmann on August 31 2023.
"The terms of the offer were that: (a) the proceeding be dismissed without any admission of liability, and (b) there be no order as to costs," the network said.
"The letter in which the offer was made set out detailed reasons as to why it was reasonable and should have been accepted by Mr Lehrmann."
Network 10 gave Mr Lehrmann until September 15 2023 to consider the offer, but he rejected it "less than two hours after it was made", they said.
Last week, media law expert Peter Bartlett estimated Network Ten's costs could be as much as $8 million.
Bruce Lehrmann says offer did not provide 'vindication'
Mr Lehrmann's submission on costs states he "did not accept that offer" because it did not afford him an "opportunity for vindication".
This was after Mr Lehrmann discontinued a similar case against News Life Media and journalist Samantha Maiden in May last year, with the company saying a contribution had been made to his legal costs, but no damages were paid.
He also settled with the ABC over a Press Club address on the day the trial began.
The ABC contribution of just over $140,000 was paid into his lawyers' trust account for legal costs.
"Despite the findings of this court, the respondents still bore the onus and at the time of the offer it could not be said to have been unreasonable for the applicant to continue to pursue the proceedings rather than accept a ‘walk away’ offer that left him with no opportunity for vindication," the submission says.
"An important consideration for this court however is the seriousness of the allegation published and the need for vindication, which an acceptance of a ‘walk away’ offer would not bring. No apology was provided as part of the offer.
"The fact of the offer being made and not accepted is a relevant circumstance to the exercise of this court’s discretion."
Mr Lehrmann's submission also requests compensation, stating Network Ten embarked on a qualified privilege defence which was "bound to fail".
Qualified privilege is a defence to defamation, if it can be proved there is a legal, moral or social duty of the publisher to share information with the public.
"It was their case that they had acted reasonably in publishing The Project broadcast," the submission states.
"In short, none of the qualified privilege defences were successful.
"Given this court's findings as to the failure of those defences and the fundamental missteps taken by the respondents in publishing The Project broadcast it is open to this court to conclude that the applicant should be compensated for the time and expense in having to establish that the qualified privilege defences were bound to fail.
"An appropriate exercise of its discretion on costs would be a cost order that recognised that a certain proportion of the hearing time was taken up by the qualified privilege defences, those defences prolonged the proceeding unnecessarily, and on which the applicant has enjoyed a measure of success."
Case 'futile, if not self-destructive': Wilkinson lawyer
In their submission, Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed with Network Ten, submitting to the court that Mr Lehrmann "should be ordered to pay Ms Wilkinson's costs of the proceedings".
Barrister Sue Chrysanthou said Ms Wilkinson "offered a significant compromise from her perspective" in the August settlement, and the court should consider Mr Lehrmann's refusal in its costs decision.
In April 2023, Mr Lehrmann won the right to pursue his claim to trial, even though the usual 12-month time limitation for a defamation claim after publication had elapsed.
Ms Chrysanthou said Ms Wilkinson's opposition to the case progressing past this point has been "vindicated" by the judge's findings.
"Ms Wilkinson's opposition of that extension has been ultimately vindicated, while the extension of time has proven futile, if not self-destructive, for the applicant [Mr Lehrmann]," Ms Chysanthou said.
"The court's conclusion on the justification defence means that this proceeding has been fraudulent from the start including an express false denial of sexual assault in the concerns notice.
"The applicant, however, sought to positively benefit from his lie by expressly alleging falsely in aid of a claim for aggravated damages there were 'false allegations of sexual assault as made by Ms Higgins'."
Ms Chysanthou argued Mr Lehrmann could have foreseen an outcome where he would pay costs for Ms Wilkinson as well as Network Ten, as they filed a separate notice of appearance less than a week after his claim was served.
"It was open to the applicant to discontinue his claim against Ms Wilkinson at that time, with little or no costs penalty," her submission read.
The court will hold a hearing next week to consider the issues.
Another issue the court will have to grapple with is how much Ten should pay towards Lisa Wilkinson's personal legal costs, which were initially estimated at more than $700,000, before the Federal Court hearings began.
Ten says that cannot be determined until the main costs are assessed.