Mr Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence in the case and there remain no criminal findings against him after his aborted trial in the ACT Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The defamation case, which Mr Lehrmann brought against the network and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, ran for five weeks last year before reopening last month to hear further evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Justice Michael Lee today gave his decision in the matter of costs, ordering that they be paid “on an indemnity basis” for most of the case, except for the cost of Ten’s failed qualified privilege defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An order for indemnity costs involves an extra payment on top of the reasonable costs of running a case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court has not heard what the total costs come to, and Justice Lee has ordered that issue be handed to a referee to assess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“There are no real winners in this litigation,” Justice Lee said today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bruce Lehrmann spared some costs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It wasn’t a total loss for Mr Lehrmann, who had argued he should not have to pay for the qualified privilege defence, which failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today Justice Lee said he would have to pay the basic costs of that but would be spared the higher indemnity costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indemnity costs are levied at a higher rate after a losing party has refused settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Lee accepted Network Ten’s submissions that Mr Lehrmann brought the defamation case on a “knowingly false premise”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said he did not believe Mr Lehrmann’s account of why he went to Parliament House that night with Ms Higgins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Mr Lehrmann had sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins, and yet ran a primary case \u2026 that early on 23 March 2019, he was preoccupied with noting up details as to French submarine contracts,” Justice Lee said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Even if I had not reached the level of satisfaction Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins \u2026 I would have declined to award costs in Mr Lehrmann’s favour.”<\/p>\n\n\n Justice Lee also took another swipe at comments made by Network Ten after the defamation case judgment was handed down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said although the network was legally justified in their reporting on the allegation of rape, that did not apply to the whole program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The major theme of the broadcast was the publication of what [Ms Higgins’s partner David] Sharaz \u2014 the promoter of The Project and the regular conduit between Ms Higgins and [Network Ten producer Angus] Llewellyn \u2014 had ‘pitched’ to Ms Wilkinson,” Justice Lee said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The credulous approach taken as to the allegations pitched by Mr Sharaz \u2013 and as to Ms Higgins’s credit generally \u2013 lacked both rigour and objectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Contrary to the recent assertions of Network Ten, a publication is not reasonable simply because it turns out to be true in some respects.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Wilkinson is still in a battle with Network Ten over how much she should receive to pay her lawyers, a process which will be determined by a referee.<\/p>\n\n\n But Justice Lee has ordered Mr Lehrmann to pay her costs as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The appropriate exercise of the discretion is to make an order in favour of Ms Wilkinson in the same terms,” Justice Lee said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court has asked Lisa Wilkinson to send her costs to Ten so they can identify what areas are in dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More may be known when the court reconvenes for a case management hearing at the end of the month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screen-Shot-2024-05-10-at-4.49.58-pm.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screen-Shot-2024-05-10-at-4.51.29-pm.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screen-Shot-2024-05-10-at-4.51.49-pm.png\")