Bruce Lehrmann in fresh spat with former lawyers

Bruce Lehrmann claims his lawyers were ‘not entitled’ to pay Network 10 more than $100,000 from a trust account holding his settlements with other media organisations.

Bruce Lehrmann leaves Federal Court in Sydney after Justice Michael Lee hands down his judgment. Picture: NCA Newswire / Gaye Gerard

Bruce Lehrmann has become locked in a dispute over fees with his former legal team, claiming his lawyers were “not entitled” to pay Network 10 more than $100,000 from a trust account holding his settlements with other media organisations.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Zali Burrows raised the matter in a case management hearing in the Federal Court on Friday, saying Mr Lehrmann’s former lawyers were in breach of a conditional costs agreement when they paid $117,000 to Ten out of the trust account.

Judge Wendy Abraham appeared confused by the application, saying: “What’s this got to do with me?”

Mr Lehrmann is appealing judge Michael Lee’s judgment that earlier this year found, on the balance of probabilities, he raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House.

Justice Lee ruled, therefore, Ten and presenter Lisa Wilkinson did not defame Mr Lehrmann when airing an interview with Ms Higgins about the rape on The Project in 2021.

Prior to the Ten trial, Mr Lehrmann settled two other defamation matters, one with the ABC and the other with News Life Media, publisher of news.com.au, in which he received money towards his legal costs.

Both news.com.au and this masthead are ultimately owned by News Corp Australia.

Bruce Lehrmann leaves the Federal Court after Judgement was handed down in Network Ten’s favour.

During the Ten defamation trial, Mr Lehrmann was represented by solicitors Mark O’Brien Legal and barristers Steve Whybrow SC and Matthew Richardson SC who acted on a “no-win, no fee” basis.

Mr Lehrmann was initially expected to self-represent in the Federal Court appeal, but at the last minute appointed Ms Burrows to act for him. In case management on Friday, Ms Burrows indicated she would soon brief counsel Guy Reynolds SC in the matter but said she “needs” the $117,000 to do so.

“In respect of the amended notice of appeal, I just wanted to raise the issue that, in the court below, there were two other sets of proceedings in defamation for against News Life Media and the ABC, which were both settled by deed,” she said.

“That amount of money went to (Lehrmann’s) former lawyer’s trust account and costs and disbursements were paid out of that pursuant to the conditional fee agreement. Now, the issue now is that there was about $117,000, which was paid for Ten’s costs out of the trust account funds, which we say were not payable on construction of the conditional costs agreement.”

Zali Burrows. Picture: NewsWire / Nikki Short

Ms Burrows said there were also “a lot of monies paid in respect of hearing allocation fees, filing fees, which my client didn’t have to pay at the time because he was on Centrelink”.

She said she wished to “expedite” the matter relating to the $117,000 payment because “we need that money because I proposed to brief Guy Reynolds, who provided the advice in the matter, for him to settle the amended appeal, which has been drafted”.

Ms Burrows said the issue is “whether his previous lawyers were entitled to take $117,000 from trust when the construction, as we view it, of the conditional fee agreement, they’re not so entitled to”.

Justice Abraham appeared confused as to why she would deal with the costs matter between Mr Lehrmann and his lawyers, and not the registrar or Justice Lee.

“What’s this got to do with me?” she said. “This is an appeal … Why isn’t Justice Lee dealing (with it)? This is an order he made … Not an appeal from the order.”

Ms Burrows said she would make the filing to the registrar in relation to the $117,000 in costs on Monday, but requested Justice Abraham’s assistance to expedite it.

“The reason, Your Honour, why I’m asking you to deal with the application instead of the registrar is so it can be dealt with expeditiously,” Ms Burrows said.

Justice Abraham: “Why couldn’t the registrar deal with it expeditiously?”

Ms Burrows: “I’m not saying the registrar can’t, but I’d be grateful if perhaps if you could give a recommendation if it could be dealt with priority.”

Network 10 barrister Tim Senior, who had not been warned of Ms Burrows’ application, said he was “very concerned” and feared the argument was “going to hijack these appeal proceedings and disrupt these appeal proceedings”.

“There’s just so much uncertainty involved,” he said. “I don’t really know what to say.”

He said: “All I can suggest is that if an application is going to be made to the registrar, it should just be made, and then matters can be dealt with if the application is made.”

Justice Abraham also said Ms Burrows was “in breach of two orders” in failing to file evidence in relation to Ten’s security for costs application or an amended notice of appeal before the deadline.

“The normal course of events, as you would well know as an experienced practitioner in these courts, the ordinary course of events is if you cannot comply with an order, you have the matter brought back on or you liaise with the parties to seek an extension of the order,” Justice Abraham said.

“You don’t wait until it’s breached and then come to the court.”

Justice Abraham detailed a new timetable for filing evidence to the court, but issued a stern warning to the parties.

“If there is any risk that the timetable will not be met, the matter should be brought on before that’s going to happen, as opposed to waiting for the breach to occur,” she said.

Want this content (and more!) right in your inbox? Sign up for the Ipso Facto newsletter.