‘I want this over’: Judge Michael Lee’s spray on Lisa Wilkinson fees delay

As an exasperated Federal Court judge Michael Lee declares he wishes to see the case brought to a conclusion this year; an external referee finds the hourly rates charged by solicitors for Lisa Wilkinson are not reasonable.

Federal Court judge Michael Lee.

An external referee appointed to determine what percentage of Lisa Wilkinson’s legal bills Network 10 should be forced to pay has found the hourly rates charged by solicitors for the television presenter were not reasonable.

An exasperated Federal Court judge Michael Lee on Monday declared he wished to see the case brought to a conclusion this year, as Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson remain deadlocked on how much the network should contribute to its former star presenter’s legal bills.

The matter had been referred to a third-party referee to answer a series of questions, including what a “reasonable” hourly rate would be for Wilkinson’s solicitors, and whether it was appropriate for Wilkinson to have retained senior counsel Sue Chrysanthou SC to “conduct substantive work” when the case was reopened in April.

A surprise hearing called by Justice Lee on Monday heard Wilkinson’s lawyers were not yet willing to accept the findings of the report because they had “not been able to work out” what the financial consequences of the report was.

Lisa Wilkinson (right) and her star silk Sue Chrysanthou SC.

Barrister Michael Elliott SC, acting for Wilkinson, told the court the presenter took issue with the referee’s report because it did not identify or indicate a specific dollar figure that was reasonably incurred by her legal team.

“We think it would be very helpful to know, because if the figure is one that my client can live with, our position will be that Your Honour should just adopt the report, whether it’s got potential problems in it or not,” Mr Elliott said.

Bruce Lehrmann in June was ordered to pay $2m in legal costs following his failed defamation case against Ten and Wilkinson, after Justice Lee found the network did not defame him when airing an interview with former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in early 2021. He is appealing the decision.

Wilkinson and Ten late last year broke off into a dispute over legal fees after Wilkinson briefed a separate team led by barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC.

After a successful cross-claim by Wilkinson, Ten earlier this year agreed to pay “reasonable” costs for her team.

However, with the jobless Mr Lehrmann unlikely to be able to foot even a fraction of the case, Ten wanted Wilkinson to pay for all aspects of the case where it wasn’t necessary for her to have separate representation.

The final figure was set to be determined by an external referee. Wilkinson is still on Ten’s payroll, but her contract is due to expire at the end of the month.

Bruce Lehrmann after losing his landmark defamation case.

Mr Elliott on Monday indicated he wished to submit extra evidence as to the hourly rates of Wilkinson’s solicitors, considering the referee found that the reasonable rates should have been substantially lower than charged.

Wilkinson and GDL entered into a costs agreement in February last year. However, from May 2023 there was no valid costs agreement, meaning there must be a determination made on costs.

The referee made a determination that the rates should be less than GDL submitted. Ten made a submission that the rates should be even less than the referee determined.

For example, where a Gillis Delaney Lawyers (GDL) partner charged $82.50 per six minute increment, the referee found the “reasonable rate” would have been $71.50. Where a senior associate charged $58.30, the referee found the rate should have been $55.

In submissions responding to the referee’s report, Wilkinson’s lawyers said the rates laid out by the referee were “not reasonable”.

“The amounts allowed by the referee as reasonable for the Second Respondent (Wilkinson) in the report are lower than the rates charged by the lawyers from Thomson Geer (Ten’s lawyers) many of whom have less experience than the lawyers from GDL,” the submissions read.

Mr Elliott on Monday said if the question of hourly rates was to be discussed further, his team would wish to submit evidence as to why their figures were correct and reasonable.

“If the question of hourly rates is at large, we would wish to put on evidence before Your Honour as to the market rates for solicitors undertaking specialist defamation at services of the kind that were required in this case,” he said.

A frustrated Justice Lee initially said the “time has passed” for more evidence to be adduced.

“I’m not dragging this out any longer. I want this to be concluded,” he said. “I couldn’t have made it any clearer to the parties that I want it to be concluded before Christmas.”

Justice Lee said he does not “want 2025 to see my involvement” with the case “unless its necessary that I’d be involved”.

“I want to ensure that I conclude my involvement with this matter, if at all possible,” he said. “It engaged me last Advent. I really want this Advent to bring it to an end.”

However, he allowed the parties to attend a “settlement discussion” to determine steps going forward.

The referee also found it was appropriate for Wilkinson to have incurred costs when preparing to hear Ten’s application to reopen the case in light of new evidence provided by former Seven Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach in April.

However, he said it was “not reasonably necessary” for her to have retained Ms Chrysanthou to “conduct substantive work” in relation to the re-opened proceedings, including reviewing documents, preparing cross-examination with Auerbach and reviewing hearing transcripts.

The matter has been adjourned until early February. Wilkinson was ordered to pay Ten’s costs from Monday’s hearing.