EXCLUSIVE
Network Ten presented Bruce Lehrmann with an agreement to drop his failed defamation action without damages, costs or apology, and with the threat of a hefty legal bill even if he won.
The broadcaster’s settlement offer was presented to the Federal Court on Wednesday during a costs hearing in the defamation proceedings, during which Ten argued that Lehrmann should have accepted the settlement.
According to court documents, the offer was sent to Lehrmann’s lawyers at Mark O’Brien Legal on August 31 last year, four months before the matter was heard in court.
Instead of offering compensation or an apology for inadvertently identifying him as a rapist on The Project, as Lehrmann had requested, the network suggested that he drop the matter and walk away as if nothing had happened.
Lehrmann had two weeks to consider the offer, but it only took two hours for his lawyers to reject it on his behalf in a brief email that said: “Our client rejects that offer.”
He lost the defamation case on April 15, when Judge Michael Lee found, on a balance of probabilities, that he had raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament in 2019, much like the way he described to Lisa Wilkinson in The Project in 2021.
Despite the ruling against Lehrmann, Judge Lee criticized Ten’s offer, saying in court on Wednesday that it was unlikely to have been accepted because there was nothing in the way of financial compensation.
Bruce Lehrmann appears in his Spotlight interview last year
Lisa Wilkinson is pictured giving a speech outside court after sentencing in April.
Network Ten’s case hinged on a truth defense, which meant it sought to prove that Ms Higgins’ rape allegations were true and that Lehrmann was therefore not defamed in the broadcast, even though He was not named in the program.
In the settlement offer, Network Ten told Lehrmann that he would likely lose the case and face extreme criticism, citing a moment from his interview on Channel Seven’s Spotlight program that aired in June last year.
In that interview, Lehrmann said he had nothing to lose, but Network Ten said it would have everything to lose if the ruling were not in its favour.
In Spotlight, Lehrmann said, “I accept that there will be 50 percent of the country, probably more, that thinks I’m a rapist, OK?”
Instead of focusing on an attractive offer, Network Ten’s settlement proposal noted the potential repercussions for Lehrmann if it proceeded to trial.
It said: ‘If our client’s defense of the truth is successful, the remaining “50 percent of the country” will have to accept that his client is a rapist.
-That’s clear. Such a finding would also almost certainly be fatal.’
Brittany Higgins appears dressed in blue outside court in March. In 2021, she told The Project that she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann.
The network said successful plaintiffs often have “pyrrhic victories,” meaning their reputations suffer due to the nature of the evidence presented at trial, even though the court ruled in their favor.
“Even if Mr. Lehrmann is successful in this proceeding (which we consider unlikely), he will not be exonerated,” the offer said.
“If he loses (which we consider likely), he will suffer a devastating blow from which he can realistically never hope to recover.”
Network Ten went on to describe the Project as a “considered, careful and robust” programme, adding: “There is perhaps no better example of this than the segment in question in this case, which was approached with care and diligence.”
The actual settlement offer was in the last part of the letter and requested that the matter be dropped and that there be no costs orders.
However, Network Ten warned Lehrmann that he could be hit with a legal bill, even if he won the case, for costs incurred during a two-day hearing in early 2023 to extend the time limit in which he could bring an action. for defamation.
The deadline is usually one year after issuance, but Lehrmann filed his case after that deadline.
He successfully argued that there was no way he could have brought a defamation case a year into the air because he was accused of sexual assault during that time.
Despite losing that particular hearing, Network Ten threatened to charge Lehrmann his legal bills for that hearing whether or not he won the defamation case.
Bruce Lehrmann did not answer any questions after leaving court in April after losing his defamation suit.
‘Although (Lehrmann) obtained an extension of time, we expect that some, if not all, of (Network Ten’s) costs of preparing and opposing (Lehrmann’s) application for an extension of time will be recoverable, even if his client is ultimately successful in the procedure (which is unlikely),’ it said.
Lehrmann lost the defamation case on April 15, when Judge Michael Lee found that he was likely to have raped Brittany Higgins in the way she described on The Project in 2021.
The costs hearing was held on Wednesday to determine how much Lehrmann, as the loser of the trial, will have to pay.
Network Ten had argued in its submissions that Lehrmann’s rejection of the bid was “unreasonable” and that it should therefore be liable for further costs.
During the hearing, Judge Michael Lee slammed Network Ten for the offer saying it was unlikely Lehrmann would have accepted it due to a deal he appeared to have reached with Brittany Higgins.
He referred to an email the network received from Ms Higgins’ lawyer, Leon Zwier, asking that no payment or apology be given to Lehrmann to resolve the matter.
“Based on the evidence, it appears that Network Ten put itself in a situation where it would not make a settlement offer other than a gateway (settlement offer),” he said.
“The idea that you could make any offer to settle the proceedings or settle the case for even one dollar was immediately dismissed because you had apparently agreed with Ms. Higgins that no payment of any amount would be made.”
He asked to what extent that settlement offer was consistent with the overall goal of a defamation trial, which is typically to restore damaged reputations.
“I’ve never seen anything like this in litigation,” Judge Lee said.
Dr Collins said the judge only had evidence from that particular moment, rather than the full picture.
He assured the court that the idea that Ms Higgins testified because her conditions were met was false.