Lehrmann has indicated he hopes to appeal and has briefed a new senior counsel to consider the prospects of success. Justice Lee allowed the deadline to be extended from four to six weeks.

After Justice Lee’s judgment was handed down, Network Ten put out a statement celebrating its defamation win as a “triumph for truth” and said the judgment vindicated its telling of the rape.

Similarly, its lawyer Justin Quill told reporters outside the Federal Court that Justice Lee found the network “deserved to be vindicated”.

The sentiment was also mirrored by The Project’s host Lisa Wilkinson who said she “published a true story about a rape”.

Appearing in court on Wednesday (1 May) for a discussion about the costs, Justice Lee said he noticed Ten “thought it was appropriate … to go around and say it had been vindicated in all aspects of its conduct”.

“That was quite misleading. I made it perfectly plain that what occurred was the respondents fell short of reasonable standards in the credulous way they went about reporting the allegations.

“Apart from the discourtesy … without even having taken time to read the judgment, it was quite misleading,” Justice Lee said.

VIEW ALL

In the summary read out on the day, Justice Lee said Network Ten ignored “flashing warning lights” in Higgins’ account of the night of the rape and had a “lack of curiosity” about parts of her evidence.

On Wednesday (1 May), Justice Lee went on to criticise submissions made by Network Ten’s counsel, Dr Matthew Collins, including not allowing Parliament House security guards to respond and for pushing assertions Higgins was left without workplace support.

In reply, Collins said comments made by Quill were “not a matter which should properly bear upon Your Honour’s discretion” of whether the network should be granted indemnity costs.

He added he also took the criticisms of his submissions “extremely seriously” and does not accept improper submissions were made.

Collins said that given the tight turnaround of the defamation trial, “it is not fair that parties should be deprived of costs because of infelicities in a written submission delivered in those circumstances”.

Justice Lee clarified that Collins meant it would be “irrelevant” for him to consider the misleading statements when determining costs.

“I do make that submission,” Dr Collins replied.

Justice Lee said there was “force” in the argument and agreed to put his criticisms of the statements “to one side”.

“Can I say this, this is an extraordinarily difficult case, and I think all counsel conducted themselves entirely appropriately in relation to the case,” Justice Lee went on to say.

“There are aspects of the submissions made by all parties which I think, with the benefit of further reflection, and certainly in my view, were not properly supported by the evidence.

“There is a difference between that and thinking people acted inappropriately. Everyone conducted themselves with great skill.”

Later in the hearing, Collins told Justice Lee that Network Ten asked him to provide “training and answer questions”.

“That is an obligation I have accepted and will perform in my capacity as a senior member of the profession, and Your Honour ought to take comfort in that,” Collins said.

Costs debate may hinge on letter about Higgins’ involvement

During the costs hearing, Justice Lee challenged whether he should order indemnity costs from the date Network Ten offered Lehrmann a settlement, given a conflicting request from Higgins.

In the letter published on the Federal Court, the network’s lawyers said it was “plain from the evidence” Lehrmann would lose.

They said their offer was a genuine compromise involving their intention to give up an opportunity to “vindicate” their journalism.

However, Justice Lee said evidence suggested Higgins would only participate on the condition Lehrmann was not offered a settlement.

“It took off the table immediately the notion you could make to resolve the proceedings,” Justice Lee told Collins.

Collins said the “critical” point in this argument was that the letter of offer was still made after an “overwhelming” body of evidence should have made it clear to Lehrmann that he would lose.

“He must have known at all times that the imputations in which he complained are substantially true,” Collins said.

“We are very much in the territory in which the court was faced with in the Ben Roberts-Smith matter, where in light of the findings of fact in that case, and taking the findings as a starting point, the proceedings can be seen on the basis that it was doomed to fail.”

As for whether Ten should be liable for Wilkinson’s costs, Justice Lee said she is “entitled to get a cheque … prior to waiting to see whether or not Lehrmann receives any money or is placed into bankruptcy”.

Justice Lee suggested Ten and Wilkinson determine what is in dispute before the costs order is made.

Justice Lee reserved his costs decision.

More to come.