Judge criticises Lisa Wilkinson’s legal team amid Bruce Lehrmann defamation case

A Federal Court judge has quizzed her legal team for ‘undue complications’ in her defamation proceedings with Bruce Lehrmann, after she launched a separate case against Network 10.

Ten Network host Lisa Wilkinson.

A Federal Court judge has criticised Lisa Wilkinson’s legal team for “undue complications” in her defamation proceedings with Bruce Lehrmann, after she launched a separate legal case against Network 10 in a different court, and with new legal representation.

Wilkinson last week began proceedings against Network 10 over claims the TV network had backed out of an agreement to cover more than $700,000 in legal costs in the defamation suit brought by Mr Lehrmann.

Mr Lehrmann is suing Wilkinson and Network 10 over an interview with Brittany Higgins that aired on The Project in 2021, which detailed accusations he had raped Ms Higgins in Parliament House, but did not name him as the alleged attacker.

Wilkinson hired top defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC and Gillis Delaney Lawyers partner Anthony Jefferies in February to defend her against Mr Lehrmann’s defamation action, and in doing so, she opted out of using Thomson Geer – a law firm Network 10 has on retainer.

In the new case filed to the NSW Supreme Court, Wilkinson claims Network 10 is unlawfully refusing to pay two invoices – one for $353,538.88 in May, the second for $370,017.00 in September – to cover Ms Chrysanthou and Mr Jefferies’ legal fees.

The network has requested to pay Wilkinson‘s legal fees in a lump sum at the conclusion of the proceedings to account for costs – a request Wilkinson rejects.

Barrister Sue Chrysanthou. Picture: NCA NewsWire / James Gourley

During a case management hearing for the defamation matter on Tuesday, Justice Michael Lee questioned Wilkinson’s legal team’s decision to conduct the new proceedings in a separate court, rather than raising a cross-claim before him.

“As is the case of countless cases that I’ve been involved, these issues are raised by way of cross-claim in these proceedings,” he said.

“That happens every day, with disputes concerning insurance. I just do not understand why – unless there’s some misapprehension about the way in which federal jurisdiction operates – I’m not sure why the decision was made to commence a proceeding in another court.”

Bruce Lehrmann.

Justice Lee said he would have thought it to have been “far more efficient” for a cross-claim to have been heard before him, to reduce complications when it comes to deciding costs at the conclusion of the defamation case.

Ms Chrysanthou, who is not involved in Wilkinson’s proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court, told Justice Lee there was no misapprehension on the functions of the court.

She said the decision was made for the matter to be heard in another court as it was not a question of whether Network 10 would indemnify Wilkinson, but rather when it would do so and the costs it would cover.

“We think that removing that issue from these proceedings will ensure that the respondents proper conduct of the defence, which is a cooperative approach from our perspective … we would prefer not to be distracted by that dispute between our clients having regard to the issues in the case before Your Honour,” she said.

“In circumstances where there‘s no dispute between my client and Network 10 on the actual obligation to indemnify, we thought that issues of assessment and timing could be appropriately dealt with separately and is being dealt with separately by separate legal representatives completely on the part of the Network and separate counsel in relation to my client.”

Justice Lee accepted Ms Chrysanthou’s reasons, the matters will be heard in separate courts.

Wilkinson’s claim against Network 10 will have a directions hearing on November 4.

The defamation trial is due to begin on November 24.