Earlier this year, Mr Lehrmann filed defamation claims against both Network Ten and News Life Media.

Both companies have since fought to have the proceedings dismissed, as Mr Lehrmann missed the year-long deadline, launching defamation actions almost two years after the alleged defamation aired on these media outlets.

Despite the limitation period having passed, Lee J ruled that it was reasonable that Mr Lehrmann had delayed launching these proceedings, as Mr Lehrmann said earlier legal advice he had received advised him to wait, as criminal proceedings were currently underway.

Justice Lee allowed the limitation period to be extended in each claim — as he noted that “at the risk of repetition, Mr Lehrmann was in the unusual position of directing his energies and resources in acting on advice to maximise his chances of avoiding, and then defending, one of the highest profile and commented upon prosecutions in recent memory”.

“What is critical is that despite his interest, Mr Lehrmann chose, on advice, not to commence proceedings,” Lee J said.

“I am comfortably satisfied that given the stakes and the criminal law advice he received, and irrespective of his level of knowledge of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) providing for a tight limitations period, Mr Lehrmann would not have run the risk of commencement.”

Defamation proceedings filed 2 years after the fact

VIEW ALL

Mr Lehrmann first filed proceedings in February this year against Network Ten and high-profile journalist Lisa Wilkinson over an interview aired on The Project in February 2021, during which fellow former political staffer Brittany Higgins alleged that she had been raped in the office of then-defence minister Linda Reynolds at Parliament House.

The respondents were, Mr Lehrmann’s statement of claim read, “recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of the imputations carried … without giving [him] a reasonable opportunity to respond”.

Following this, Mr Lehrmann also filed a legal claim against News Life Media, the publisher of news.com.au, and journalist Samantha Maiden in relation to the further coverage of those allegations.

Despite not being named in the coverage, Mr Lehrmann had argued that he was identifiable, particularly after charges were filed against him in August 2021.

In her filed defence, Ms Wilkinson argued that the limitation period bars the causes of action being brought, but if required, she seeks to rely on the defences of justification and qualified privilege, submitting that the imputations complained of are “substantially true”.

Earlier this month, The Project revealed the email that was sent to Mr Lehrmann ahead of the interview with Ms Higgins, as part of its defence proceedings against the defamation trial.

As reported by news.com.au, the email included a number of questions, including “Did you rape Brittany Higgins as alleged?” and “Did you take Ms Higgins to Australian Parliament House after the drinks?” as well as an offer for him to tell his side of the story, in what was reportedly part of five attempts to contact Mr Lehrmann.

Justice Lee found that Mr Lehrmann had received advice in February 2021 that he should defer any defamation proceedings — and considered that it was not reasonable for Mr Lehrmann to have “acted contrary to the advice given to him at a time when his resources and energies were being directed to resolving the criminal allegations”.

“Mr Lehrmann’s actions reflect the fact that his real priority, even before prosecution, was the criminal allegations and, in recognising this priority, he engaged and then listened to a specialist criminal defence solicitor,” he said.

“The advice to defer fighting on two fronts was unsurprising; civil proceedings could expose Mr Lehrmann to forensic examination of matters bearing upon guilt or innocence, hence prejudicing his defence of the criminal charge; deferring proceedings was also consistent with husbanding resources.”

Criminal charges dropped after 2 failed trials

Mr Lehrmann has, repeatedly and strenuously, maintained his innocence and pleaded “not guilty” in the criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court, which was ultimately abandoned because of juror misconduct.

He had been accused of raping former fellow staffer Brittany Higgins in early 2019, in the office of then-defence minister Linda Reynolds, at Parliament House. He had pleaded not guilty and has strenuously denied that any sexual activity occurred.

The first trial scheduled in regard to the allegations resulted in the jury being discharged following the uncovering or misconduct by a juror. Then, in December last year, ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold announced that the charge of sexual intercourse without consent against Mr Lehrmann would be dropped, citing an “unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant” and, as a result, that the second scheduled trial would not go ahead.

In a statement to reporters at the time, Mr Drumgold said: “I have recently received compelling evidence from two independent medical experts that the ongoing trauma associated with this prosecution presents a significant and unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant.

“The evidence makes it clear that this is not limited to the harm of giving evidence in a witness box, rather applies whether or not the complainant is required to enter a witness box during a retrial.

“I have made the difficult decision that it is no longer in the public interest to pursue a prosecution at the risk of the complainant’s life. This has left me no option but to file a notice declining to proceed with the retrial of this matter, which I have done this morning. This brings the prosecution to an end.”

Mr Drumgold also noted that, as a complainant, Ms Higgins has “faced a level of personal attack that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work”.

A 3rd defamation case to be heard

Earlier this month, Mr Lerhmann also filed defamation claims against the ABC for a press club address in 2022 with Ms Higgins and former Australian of the Year Grace Tame.

In his submissions for that claim, Mr Lehrmann said that ABC defamed him, as the Press Club address was “an assertion as a matter of fact that [he] had raped Ms Higgins on a couch in Parliament House”.

In reference to that defamation case, Justice Lee said that as all three defamation cases relate to “similar issues”, “there is no reason why all three proceedings should not be heard concurrently”.

Next steps

Justice Lee ordered that “the time for filing any application for leave to appeal for a period of 28 days after final orders are made in both proceedings” and noted that these claims should be “heard and determined with celerity”.

Further, he expressed no preference for whether the matters be heard by a jury or a judge sitting alone.