Bruce Lehrmann granted an extension to appeal in case where judge ruled he did rape Brittany Higgins

Major developments have been heard in court today as the Bruce Lehrmann and Lisa Wilkinson saga continues.

The Federal Court reconvened on Wednesday to hear submissions of how much Bruce Lehrmann should have to pay in the wake of his failed defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Lee said he had reached a “level of satisfaction” that costs would be awarded in Network Ten’s favour.

He did not reveal the exact amount and reserved his judgment for a later date, but added that it would be “relatively prompt”.

Mr Lehrmann also granted a time extension to launch an appeal against the decision, with the new deadline being May 31.

Last month, Justice Michael Lee found on civil standard of the balance of probability that Mr Lehrmann did rape Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.

Follow our coverage below for the latest updates.

The Federal Court found Bruce Lehrmann had raped Brittany Higgins on the balance of probabilities. Picture: Don Arnold/Getty Images

Ten says it never intended to ‘interfere with administration of justice’

Justice Michael Lee has accepted Channel Ten’s denials that it never intended to “interfere with the administration of justice” by green-lighting Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech.

Justice Lee had demanded Channel Ten explain its conduct in court today during a hearing in the wake of emailing parties to raise concerns about the Logies advice and comments made outside court by Thomson Geer partner Justin Quill.

“You have a corporation who’s going to report on court matters in the future thinking it’s okay, eight days before a jury trial, to publish such material,” Justice Lee said in court.

However after reading the riot act in an email to parties, he then stopped short of taking further action after submissions from Channel Ten’s barrister Matt Collins KC.

Dr Collins said that Channel Ten had taken Justice Lee’s concerns “extremely seriously”. Several lawyers, including Tasha Smithies who provided the Logies advice and Thomson Geer partner Justin Quill who made comments outside court after the judgment, also provided affidavits in response to Justice Lee’s concerns.

Dr Collins then went on to say that in his respectful submission, there was nothing to be served by having the lawyers “flagellated publicly because of the contents of those affidavits”.

The barrister also noted that Justice Lee was “very critical” of Network Ten’s legal advice that the Logies speech was “ok”.

“But there was not the slightest suggestion … in our submission that anything Ms Smithies said in the witness box would lead your honour to think that she was engaged in some campaign that had an intention to interfere with Mr Lehrmann’s right to a fair trial,” he said.

“She’s open to criticism for other matters, but not that, you know, respectful submission, and it would be an extraordinarily serious thing to say have any experience as a legal practitioner.”

Tasha Smithies, the senior litigation lawyer for Network 10. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Damian Shaw

‘Cover up’ finding questioned

Justice Lee has also clashed with Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou over his finding that there was never a cover up and whether legal submissions made on this matter should have any bearing on legal costs order he might make.

In his judgment, Justice Lee found that Ms Higgins was raped by Mr Lehrmann but rejected that there was any political cover up.

“We did not come here to prove the truth of a cover up, to prove the truth of allegations about Ms (Fiona) Brown or Ms (Linda) Reynolds. In fact, those issues would have been wholly irrelevant,” Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou said.

But Justice Lee wasn’t having it, continuing to point out why there was no evidence of a cover up.

“What you came here to prove and what you didn’t come here to prove it’s not really the point,” he said.

Justice Lee said the suggestion there were roadblocks to a police investigation or a cover up were “squarely an issue as to the falsity or truth of out of court representations made on Ms Higgins”.

“That’s why I went to such pains to afford procedural fairness in relation to that issue,” Justice Lee said.

He then told Wilkinson’s barrister, Ms Chrysanthou, that, “I’m not here to listen to speeches.”

In the judgment Justice Lee suggested the “cover up narrative” as he described it emerged after Ms Higgins met David Sharaz.

“The most important aspect of this later conduct, commencing in early 2021, was the way in which Ms Higgins crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint,” he said.

Bankruptcy’ a possibility for Bruce Lehrmann

Justice Michael Lee has raised the prospect that Bruce Lehrmann will be unable to pay Ten’s $5 million legal costs and will be forced into bankruptcy.

If he is forced into bankruptcy it could also have an impact on the former Liberal staffer’s capacity to appeal the judgment he raped Brittany Higgins, because strict rules apply to appeals that can involve evidence of the plaintiff’s financial capacity to pay legal costs that were not applied during the original civil trial.

News.com.au revealed on Tuesday that Mr Lehrmann has engaged a noted appeals specialist Guy Reynolds SC to examine the judgment.

During a legal costs hearing in Sydney, Ten’s barrister Matt Collins KC raised concerns that much of the legal arguments were “academic” because Mr Lehrmann will not be able to pay the costs that are estimated to be between $5 million and $6 million.

“Alternatively, someone has to go and bankrupt Mr Lehrmann or do something like that,’’ Dr Collins said.

Justice Lee also discussed how Lisa Wilkinson should get her legal bills paid for by Channel Ten, following her court victory on that issue.

“She’s entitled to get a cheque from Network 10 prior to waiting to see whether or not Mr Lehrmann comes up with any money or he’s placed in a bankruptcy,’’ Justice Lee said.

Sue Chrysanthou SC and Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: Don Arnold/Getty Images

Judge reads the riot act at Channel Ten

Justice Lee has read the riot act at Network Ten for “misleading” comments outside court in the wake of his judgment by suggesting it had been vindicated by the finding that Ms Higgins was raped without reference to his significant criticisms of the program.

During a costs hearing in the Federal Court, Justice Lee has raised concerns about Ten’s “conduct”.

He raised concerns about the “highly unusual” stipulation that Ms Higgins’ lawyer Leon Zwier who suggested she would not deal with Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou.

The remarks follows Justice Lee writing to the parties raising concerns about the public comments of Thomson Geer lawyer Justin Quill outside court.

Mr Quill held a press conference outside court after Justice Lee read out a shorter version of his decision on April 15 that “the way in which judges and barristers pick apart and dissect what journalists did or didn’t do in applying a legal threshold or legal test of reasonableness is quite often divorced from reality”.

Speaking in the Federal Court today, Justice Lee said: “There are various aspects of the conduct of Network Ten which cause me concern.”

“The various assertions of Network Ten spokesman immediately after the judgment, and without even reading the judgment.

“I don’t consider my examination of the respondents’ conduct to be devoid or divorced of reality in order to involve picking apart and dissecting the respondents conduct by reference to some sort of standard of perfection.”

Justice Lee then said that “anyone taking the trouble to read the judgment” would conclude that he didn’t regard this evaluative assessment as “a close-run thing”.

“Notwithstanding that Network Ten apparently thought it appropriate for a period of 48 hours following the delivery of the judgment to go around and effectively say it had been vindicated in relation to all aspects of its conduct,” he said.

“That was quite misleading. I made it perfectly plain that what occurred in this case was that the respondents fell well short of a standard of reasonableness in the credulous why they went to bed reporting these allegations, and I was quite clear about that.”

Ten’s lawyer Mr Quill, who was sitting in the Federal Court during Justice Lee’s statement, had also provided a “contrite” affidavit according to Ten’s barrister Matt Collins KC. As had Ten’s head of litigation Tasha Smithies.

“These are three very, very serious lawyers who have put on very contrite expressions of very sincere expressions of contrition,” Dr Collins said.

“Mr Quill’s statements outside the court were made in the immediate aftermath of a review on his judgment, having been read those statements and respectful submission, could not have a rational bearing upon the proper disposition of costs.”

Ten claims Lehrmann brought case on ‘deliberately wicked’ basis

Ten has argued Mr Lehrmann should be ordered to pay it’s massive legal costs on an indemnity basis, which covers a higher proportion of a costs bill than the standard order, on the basis he brought the case “on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis”.

Barrister Matt Collins KC argued today that the circumstances were similar to the Ben Roberts-Smith matter where he was ordered to pay Nine’s costs on an indemnity basis.

While he did not stipulate how much those legal costs were, legal sources have previously suggested the combined cost of Ten and Wilkinson were between $5 million and $6 million.

“The proceeding was commenced by Mr Lehrmann in circumstances in respect of imputations, all of which had at their heart an assertion that he had been defamed by a publication that he had raped Ms Higgins,” Dr Collins said.

“One now proceeds from the basis that he must have known at all that though the imputations of which he complained were substantially true.

“In those circumstances, we are very much in the territory in our submission in which, with which the court was faced in the Ben Robert-Smith matter.

“Where in light of the findings of fact, in that case, taking the findings as a starting point, the proceedings could be seen always to have been commenced on a basis that was doomed to fail and that the applicant must have known was doomed to fail.”

Justice Lee said there appeared to be five issues.

“The issues seem to be: should Network 10 obtain a costs order and if so, what it should be? The second is should Ms Wilkinson obtain a costs order, and if so what should it be,” he said.

“Thirdly, what order should be made to resolve the cost position between the respondents and four in the light of my findings and related matters isn’t necessarily appropriate for the court to take any further steps including in relation to protecting the administration of justice.”

Lehrmann could face $5m in legal costs

Mr Lehrmann is set to learn the cost of going back to collect his hat today, with Justice Lee to hear arguments on how much he should pay of Ten and Wilkinson’s estimated $5 million in legal costs.

The former Liberal staffer could be declared bankrupt if Ten and Wilkinson pursue him for legal costs and he can’t pay up.

And Ten is also hinting at a fresh round of legal action could also unearth if any secret backers have ever paid his legal bills.

Legal sources have told news.com.au the combined costs of Wilkinson and Ten are likely to amount to between $5 million and $6 million.

Mr Lehrmann is an unemployed law student who has not worked full-time since late 2021. During that period he also had his rent paid for by the Seven Network over the last year along with dinners and drinks at expensive restaurants.

But legal sources say that Justice Lee is also expected to have more to say in relation to Wilkinson’s Logies speech with the focus squarely on Ten’s lawyers.

Wilkinson’s infamous Logies speech

Justice Lee delivered a scathing verdict regarding the conduct of Ten over the decision to green-light Wilkinson’s infamous Logies speech on the eve of Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial.

It was “grossly improper and unjustifiable” he found, because it implied Ms Higgins’ allegations were true in proximity to the jury hearing evidence.

The speech then led to Chief Justice Lucy McCallum delaying Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial by three months.

“It was conduct apt to cause disruption to the criminal justice system and, without the Chief Justice making the orders she did, could have imperilled Mr Lehrmann’s right to a fair trial,’’ Justice Lee said in his judgment.

Outside the court, it wasn’t an assessment that was shared by lawyer Justin Quill, whose firm Thomson Geer acted for Ten.

Lisa Wilkinson addresses the media outside the Federal Court last month. Picture: NCA Newswire / Gaye Gerard

Justin Quill from the Network Ten legal team speaks to media following judgment in the defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: Max Mason-Hubers

Speaking in the wake of the judgment that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins on the balance of probabilities, he had this to say to 2GB radio.

“Look, on the Logies speech, I just disagree with his honour,’’ Mr Quill said.

“He’s a very good judge, but I disagree on this point. It just shows an absolute lack of faith in our juries.

“As if a jury properly instructed swearing an oath, seeing evidence in front of them week after week in a criminal case, would think about the implication from a Logies speech a couple of months earlier and suddenly think ‘I am going to find this guy guilty’.”

It’s now emerged that Justice Lee has asked for a transcript of those statements and others by Mr Quill, a sign some believe that Justice Lee may have more to say on the issue of the Logies speech and contempt when the parties return to make submissions on the issue of legal costs on Wednesday, May 1.

Similar issues have arisen in defamation proceedings before. Two years ago, Federal Court Justice Steven Rares said he was “completely dumbfounded” that Google had allowed videos to be uploaded to YouTube which attacked the lawyers of former NSW deputy premier John Barilaro and accused them of misconduct, and was considering referring the matter for prosecution for contempt.

Mr Barilaro had sued Google and political commentator Jordan Shanks over two videos published on the Friendlyjordies channel.

What we do know is that Justice Lee did not regard Lisa Wilkinson as culpable as Channel Ten.

“Although I regard Ms Wilkinson’s conduct in giving the speech to be improper and unjustifiable, she has less culpability than those encouraging her to make the speech,’’ Justice Lee said.

“Ms Wilkinson at least had the insight to seek advice and might not be expected to have the objectivity of others within Network Ten given the fact that she had, as (Channel Ten lawyer Tasha) Smithies noted, become part of the story.”

Instead, he turned his attention squarely to Ten’s head of litigation Tasha Smithies.

“I cannot responsibly leave this topic without remarking that the most disturbing aspect of this part of the case is the insouciance of Ms Smithies as to the real criticisms made by the Chief Justice and the repeated fastening upon Mr Drumgold’s separate failure as some form of excuse,” he said.

“There has been ample time for mature reflection and yet there is no recognition, even now, that the speech could have undermined the administration of justice and caused it to be disrupted. It is one thing to make a mistake, even a serious mistake – after all, to err is to be human.

“But I regret to say that the continuing lack of insight by Ms Smithies as to the inappropriateness of her conduct related to the speech reflects, in my view, a lack of proper appreciation of her professional obligations as a solicitor and her paramount duty to the Court and the administration of justice: see r 3.1, Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW).”

Ten’s lawyer Tasha Smithies told the Federal Court however that she did not accept that advice had exposed Wilkinson to public criticism.

She has denied trying to protect her own reputation by not revealing the circumstances publicly previously, despite Wilkinson’s claims she was “begging” Ten to reveal the legal advice.

During a tense cross examination, Wilkinson’s barrister Michael Elliott SC grilled Ms Smithies over her conduct in a hearing into the television presenter’s decision to hire her own legal team.

The network’s barrister, Robert Dick, SC, told Justice Lee Ten did not accept the legal advice it gave Wilkinson was “completely inappropriate”.

Justice Lee asked: “Does Channel Ten say … the advice that was given was anything other than completely inappropriate?”

Mr Dick replied: “No we don’t accept that it was completely inappropriate.”

Mr Dick said Ten accepted that ultimately it “gave rise to a real risk of contempt, and it was unfortunate”.

Originally published as Bruce Lehrmann granted an extension to appeal in case where judge ruled he did rape Brittany Higgins