Ten agrees to pay Lisa Wilkinson $1.15 million to cover Lehrmann costs

Background of the Case: A High-Stakes Defamation Suit

In February 2021, an explosive interview aired on The Project, a popular Australian current affairs program, featuring Brittany Higgins, a former political staffer. Higgins shared her harrowing account of an alleged rape by Bruce Lehrmann, a colleague, in Parliament House in 2019. This interview sparked widespread public outrage and led to a defamation lawsuit filed by Lehrmann against both Network Ten (the broadcaster) and Lisa Wilkinson, one of the show’s hosts. Lehrmann claimed that the interview had damaged his reputation and sought significant damages. However, in a dramatic turn of events, the Federal Court ruled in favor of Network Ten and Wilkinson, dismissing Lehrmann’s defamation claim. Justice Michael Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann had indeed raped Higgins, as alleged. This ruling not only dismissed the defamation case but also ordered Lehrmann to pay $2 million to Network Ten to cover a portion of their legal costs.

The Court’s Decision: A Landmark Ruling with Significant Implications

The decision delivered by Justice Michael Lee was nothing short of explosive. By ruling that Lehrmann had likely raped Higgins, the court effectively upheld the credibility of Higgins’ allegations. This was a significant moment for Higgins, who had faced intense scrutiny and public backlash since coming forward with her story. The ruling also had profound implications for Lehrmann, as the court’s findings severely damaged his reputation and exposed him to further legal and financial consequences. The $2 million in costs ordered by the court was a clear indication of the financial burden Lehrmann now faced as a result of pursuing the defamation case.

Despite the court’s decision, Lehrmann has chosen to appeal the ruling, determined to clear his name and overturn the findings. This decision sets the stage for a prolonged and costly legal battle, with both sides digging in for what promises to be a contentious and emotionally charged process.

The Appeal and the Stay Order: A Temporary Reprieve for Lehrmann

Lehrmann’s decision to appeal Justice Lee’s ruling has introduced a new layer of complexity to the case. In October, Justice Wendy Abraham granted a stay order, effectively halting the enforcement of the $2 million costs order until the outcome of the appeal is determined. This stay provides Lehrmann with a temporary reprieve, allowing him to avoid paying the significant sum until the court has had an opportunity to review the original decision. However, this delay does not erase the financial burden entirely; it merely postpones it. If the appeal is unsuccessful, Lehrmann will still be required to pay the $2 million, in addition to any further costs incurred during the appeal process.

The stay order also highlights the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the case. While Lehrmann’s appeal offers him a chance to challenge the court’s findings, it also prolongs the legal ordeal for all parties involved, particularly Brittany Higgins, who continues to face the emotional toll of reliving her traumatic experience through the courts.

Rising Costs: A Financial Burden for All Parties

The legal battle between Lehrmann, Network Ten, and Lisa Wilkinson has already proven to be costly, and the appeal process is only adding to the financial strain. Wilkinson’s legal bill for defending against Lehrmann’s appeal has been estimated at over $200,000, on top of the more than $1 million already spent on defending the initial defamation case. These costs are not insignificant, and they raise serious questions about who will ultimately bear the financial burden.

Network Ten has indicated that it may not be willing to fully cover Wilkinson’s legal expenses. This has left Wilkinson in a precarious position, with her lawyers warning the Federal Court that she will "likely be liable for significant costs" regardless of any indemnity provided by the broadcaster. This revelation has added another layer of tension to the case, as Wilkinson faces the very real possibility of having to pay a substantial portion of her legal fees out of her own pocket.

Network Ten’s Position: A Cautionary Tale of Legal Risk

Network Ten’s stance on Wilkinson’s legal costs has sent shockwaves through the case, highlighting the financial risks faced by individuals and organizations involved in high-profile legal disputes. While the broadcaster has signaled that it expects to spend $272,500 on defending the appeal, including $120,000 for its barristers, it has not committed to covering all of Wilkinson’s costs. This has led to speculation about whether Network Ten will dispute some of the expenses, potentially leaving Wilkinson with a significant financial shortfall.

An affidavit filed by Ten’s solicitor, Marlia Saunders, last year revealed that Wilkinson’s legal costs for the appeal could reach $203,500, including $78,500 for her barristers. However, Saunders made it clear that Network Ten "does not concede that the costs … would be properly incurred by [Wilkinson] or reasonable for the purposes of the indemnity." This statement suggests that while the broadcaster may cover some of Wilkinson’s legal fees, it is unlikely to foot the entire bill. This dispute over costs adds another layer of complexity to the case, as Wilkinson and Network Ten navigate the financial implications of the ongoing legal battle.

Conclusion: A Case That Continues to Unfold

The case of Lehrmann v. Network Ten and Wilkinson remains one of the most high-profile and contentious legal battles in recent Australian history. The dismissal of Lehrmann’s defamation claim, coupled with the court’s findings regarding the alleged rape, has had far-reaching consequences for all parties involved. While Lehrmann’s appeal offers him a chance to challenge the court’s decision, it also extends the legal ordeal for Brittany Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson, who continue to face significant emotional and financial strain.

As the case moves forward, the focus will not only be on the legal arguments presented in court but also on the financial implications for those involved. The question of who will bear the costs of this protracted legal battle remains unresolved, adding another layer of tension to an already complex and emotionally charged situation. As the appeal process unfolds, the outcome will not only impact the individuals directly involved but also set a precedent for future defamation cases and the role of media in reporting on such sensitive issues.