Documents reveal: Channel 10 lawyers approved Wilkinson’s Logies speech
Channel 10’s legal advice to Lisa Wilkinson was never revealed in the defamation trial but is now set to be made public – along with claims of back-stabbing by some lawyers involved.
A cache of explosive documents is set to be made public this week exposing the legal advice Lisa Wilkinson received from Network Ten lawyers before her disastrous Logies speech – and revealing the intense personal animosity between several of the high-profile lawyers in the case.
New affidavits filed with the Federal Court are understood to show that Ten’s senior management asked Wilkinson to give the Logies speech and that Ten’s lawyers and senior executives approved it. The legal advice was never revealed during the defamation trial, despite the clear preference of Justice Michael Lee to see it.
One Sydney lawyer described the upcoming hearing on Tuesday as “a shit show coming to town” with previously unseen affidavits believed to show lawyers taking pot-shots at each other in “the legal fraternity’s version of Nemesis” - a reference to the ABC documentary revealing the behind-the-scenes turmoil and back-biting in the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments.
When Bruce Lehrmann sued Wilkinson and Ten over the allegation he raped Brittany Higgins, the TV presenter demanded her own legal presentation, believing the network had “thrown her under the bus” in the aftermath of the Logies speech by failing to acknowledge she had acted on their legal advice.
Wilkinson has since launched her own cross claim against Ten, with the network still refusing to pay her legal fees, now amounting to at least $700,000.
Hearings in the defamation case finished in December, with Federal Court judge Michael Lee reserving his judgement and expected to spend some months considering his verdict.
But in a highly unusual move, Justice Lee has ordered all lawyers in the defamation case to attend a hearing on Tuesday previously called to deal with the costs dispute between Wilkinson and Ten, indicating he believes material contained in the cross claim affidavits has a bearing on his decision in the central case.
Justice Lee is understood to have told lawyers in an email that he might be placed in the position of having to decide the defamation case while putting aside the evidence in Wilkinson’s cross claim and that this could put the administration of justice into disrepute.
Justice Lee was emphatic throughout the defamation case that the principles of open justice be adhered to, with all evidence heard in open court and made available on the court’s YouTube channel for members of the public to watch.
It is understood Wilkinson has filed two new affidavits in the case, with a third, on her behalf, from her solicitor, Anthony Jefferies, while Ten has filed affidavits of its own. On Tuesday, Wilkinson is expected to give evidence first.
One of the affidavits is understood to contain the legal advice Ten provided to Wilkinson before she gave the highly prejudicial Logies speech which delayed Lehrmann’s rape trial by several months.
Wilkinson has always said that she acted on legal advice from Ten’s lawyers and with approval from Ten’s senior executives when she made the speech describing Higgins as a woman of “unwavering courage”. Hours after delivering the Logies speech, Network Ten CEO Beverly McGarvey messaged Wilkinson with “Beautiful speech.”
But during the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann, the network refused to waive legal privilege over its advice - so Wilkinson’s assertion was never backed up with evidence.
During the case Justice Lee pointedly noted that Ten’s refusal to waive left privilege left him in a difficult position.
“It is inconceivable to me that any legally-qualified person could have given advice … that a Crown witness saying what was said in that Logies speech was anything other than inadvisable and inappropriate,” he said.
“Now, that causes a difficulty in circumstances where I can’t see the legal advice.”
“I think I have to think that a solicitor would give rational advice, or advice that someone who did a first year criminal law course would give.”
Wilkinson had claimed to have acted on advice but without being able to see it, Justice Lee said, “it’s very hard for me, I think, to do justice to the case that’s being put.”
In a none-too-subtle hint that he would like to see the advice, Justice Lee warned: “I want to give you fair notice that that’s my preliminary view so you can take whatever steps you wish to take in relation to that advisedly.”
The judge had already - presciently - raised the “risk of complications” on the first day of the trial when he learnt that the cross claim had first been filed in the commercial division of the NSW Supreme Court, rather than heard by him as judge of main proceedings, to avoid inconsistent evidence in the two proceedings.
The cross claim was then moved from the Supreme Court to the Federal Court, under Justice Lee.
In her closing submissions on behalf of Wilkinson in the defamation case, Chrysanthou pointed out that Ten “has not authorised Ms Wilkinson to disclose the contents of communications over which her employer maintains legal professional privilege.”
In any case, Ms Chrysanthou said, Ms Wilkinson relied on “the systems that were, to her knowledge”, in place at Network Ten, including an experienced team of lawyers.
She gave the Logies speech “on advice and with the approval of Network Ten” in circumstances where Network Ten staff and lawyer Tasha Smithies had reviewed the speech.
The Australian understands that advice will now be tendered as part of Wilkinson’s cross-claim against Ten - reportedly showing that Ten management gave wholehearted approval for the speech.
But it is also relevant to the defamation proceedings, in which a significant part of the defence is that Wilkinson and Ten acted reasonably at all times in their treatment of Bruce Lehrmann.
Establishing whether Wilkinson did act on advice as she claims would go to her credibility.
It could also become relevant in any award of costs against the parties. Lehrmann is seeking aggravated damages, given the Logies speech derailed the original start date of the criminal trial.
If Justice Lee finds in Lehrmann’s favour, the question of whether Wilkinson “went rogue” - or rather, was acting directly at the behest of Ten management and lawyers, would become relevant in any decision about aggravated damages.
The revelations in the affidavits may increase the pressure on Ten to settle in the cross claim Wilkinson she has brought against the network to pay her bills.
The Australian understands Wilkinson’s concerns began when Ten retained leading defamation expert Matthew Collins KC, who had called her Logies speech “ill-advised” on breakfast television, on the morning after the awards.
The network hired Dr Collins – without her knowledge or input – just hours after he appeared on Seven’s Sunrise program saying her comments had the “tendency to interfere with the administration of justice”.
Legal sources claimed there was “open hostility” from Ten’s in-house legal team towards Ms Chrysanthou.
The network first told the presenter she shouldn’t be represented by anyone but its own lawyers and that it wasn’t bound to pay for her separate representation.
When Wilkinson warned Ten she would file a cross claim against it in the Lehrmann case, the network proposed obtaining advice from Bret Walker SC as to the appropriateness of separate representation, after which it agreed it was liable to indemnify Wilkinson against an award of damages or costs and for “reasonable legal costs”.
However, law firm Baker & McKenzie, on behalf of Ten, then claimed Wilkinson’s lawyers had performed “substantial unnecessary work”.
Trump’s Ukraine plan risks appeasement, envoy warns
Ukraine’s top diplomat in Australia has warned Donald Trump’s plan to end his country’s war with Russia risks becoming an exercise in appeasement.
‘That’s just not true’: Steggall and Farrell in parliament corridor stoush |WATCH
Independent Zali Steggall has blasted Special Minister for State Don Farrell at a doorstop in Canberra over controversial new electoral reforms agreed to by the two major parties.