Bruce Lehrmann returns to court in bid to avoid paying millions in legal costs

Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation battle will return to court on Wednesday afternoon as the court weighs up whether he will have to fork out millions for Network 10’s and Lisa Wilkinson’s legal fees.

Justice Michael Lee earlier this month delivered judgment in favour of Ms Wilkinson and Network 10 after Lehrmann sued over an interview with Brittany Higgins broadcast on The Project during which she alleged she was sexually assaulted by a former colleague.

In his highly-awaited judgment, Justice Lee found - on the balance of probabilities - that Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins inside Parliament House in March 2019.

The matter will now return to court at 2.15pm on Wednesday for a hearing to decide whether Lehrmann will be liable for Ms Wilkinson and Network 10’s legal costs associated with the blockbuster trial.

Justice Lee dismissed the lawsuit after upholding Ten’s and Ms Wilkinson’s truth defence as he found - on the balance of probabilities - that Lehrmann had sexually assaulted Ms Higgins on a couch inside Senator Linda Reynolds’ office.

He found it more likely than not that after bringing Ms Higgins back to Parliament House, Lehrmann was “hell-bent on having sex” with her.

“In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on,” Justice Lee said in his judgment.

Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson have asked for Lehrmann to pay all of their legal costs, in submissions made to the court.

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

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”.

He argued that under such an order, Lehrmann would only be liable for a portion of Ten’s and Ms 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 in his submissions to the court.