Lehrmann ordered to pay significant chunk of Ten's legal fees

"There are no real winners in this litigation," Justice Michael Lee said at the opening of his costs judgment on Friday afternoon.

Mr Lehrmann was always expected to be hit with the costs but the question was how much.

Last month, Justice Lee found, on the civil balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House on March 23, 2019.

The loss against journalists who reported the allegation, the judge said, meant Mr Lehrmann was "not entitled to the vindication of his reputation".

Total legal costs in the protracted proceedings have been reported to be up to $10 million. However, the figure Mr Lehrmann has now been ordered to pay remains unknown.

Justice Lee ordered Mr Lehrmann to pay Ten's legal costs "on an indemnity basis" for the majority of proceedings, including relating to the successful substantial truth defence.

Indemnity costs are more rarely ordered in civil proceedings and cover almost all reasonable legal costs incurred.

The judge made the orders after reiterating he found Mr Lehrmann had run his case on a "fanciful and knowingly false premise".

"As I said, Mr Lehrmann defended the criminal charge on a false basis, lied to police, and then allowed that lie to go uncorrected before the jury," he said in his judgment.

"He wrongly instructed his senior counsel to cross-examine a complainant of sexual assault, in two legal proceedings, including, relevantly for present purposes, this case, on a knowingly false premise."

The judge also ordered Mr Lehrmann to pay Ten's fees on an ordinary basis in relation to the failed qualified privilege defence. That order often recovers closer to 70 per cent of costs.

As a result, Mr Lehrmann has been ordered to foot the bill for almost all of Ten's costs. Ms Wilkinson was granted costs on the same terms as Ten.

"In the end, it comes down to the order for costs that best does overall justice in the circumstances," Justice Lee said.

Whether Mr Lehrmann has the means to cover these costs remains to be seen. The possibility that the orders could bankrupt the man has been previously raised in court.

Ten has argued Mr Lehrmann should have to pay all of its costs because he brought forward action against the network "on a deliberately wicked and calculated basis" and rejected a "walk away" offer.

The network accused the man of abuse of process.

Earlier this week, the court heard Mr Lehrmann's lawyers had worked for him on a 'no win no fee' agreement. It was also revealed Mr Lehrmann did not have a third party agreement to help cover costs.

Ten and Ms Wilkinson have been locked in their own battle over who will pay the veteran journalist's separately hired barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC.

Justice Lee has already ordered Ten to pay those fees but just how much the network will fork out is set to be determined by an independent referee.

Ten has argued it should not pay for unreasonably duplicated work.

In his latest judgment, Justice Lee reminded Ten that while it had won the case, and been awarded costs as a result, the network had still made significant mistakes.

"Contrary to the assertions of Network Ten, the examination of the respondents' conduct was not devoid of, nor divorced from, reality; nor did it involve picking apart and dissecting the respondents' conduct by reference to a standard of perfection," he said.

"Anyone taking the trouble to read the judgment would conclude I did not consider the evaluative assessment required by the statutory qualified privilege defence to be a close-run thing."

Justice Lee was referencing critical comments made by a solicitor representing Ten, Thomson Geer partner Justin Quill, following the defamation judgment last month.

The judge also took aim at that lawyer's claims Ten and its professionalism had been vindicated by the historic decision.

"Contrary to the recent assertions of Network Ten, a publication is not reasonable simply because it turns out to be true in some respects," he said.

"With the predictability of an atomic clock, partisans have focused solely on those parts of the judgment that happen to align with preconceived notions."

Finally, Justice Lee also noted Mr Quill's post-judgment comments about a "grossly improper and unjustifiable" Logies speech, legally approved by Ten, which delayed Mr Lehrmann's ACT criminal trial.

The judge said Mr Quill's "victory tour" had publicised the speech as having "presented no difficulty whatsoever".

Justice Lee previously expressed concern about the possibility Ten believed the disruptive and prejudicial conduct was appropriate in its future dealings.

"[Material and submissions from Ten] suggests that (Saul of Tarsus-like) the scales have belatedly fallen from the anthropomorphic eyes of Network Ten," he said.

"In the circumstances, no further comment or action from this court is necessary nor appropriate."

Mr Lehrmann sued Ten and Ms Wilkinson for defamation over a The Project story which aired Ms Higgins' rape allegation.

Last month, Justice Lee handed Mr Lehrmann a decisive loss by finding the allegation was substantially true.

However, the judge also found the broadcaster and journalist had not acted reasonably in publishing the story.

In his scathing 324-page judgment, Justice Lee said Mr Lehrmann was "hell-bent on having sex" with a woman he found attractive, had kissed that same night, and had earlier encouraged to drink.

"I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann's state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins' consent and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented," the judge said.

That conclusion, Justice Lee said, was consistent with his finding that intercourse started when Ms Higgins was "not fully cognitively aware of what was happening".

The decision does not amount to a finding of criminal guilt.

MORE DEFAMATION TRIAL COVERAGE:

Mr Lehrmann's criminal trial was aborted in late 2022 after juror misconduct and the charge of sexual intercourse without consent levelled at him dropped over concerns for Ms Higgins' mental health.

The man has also been granted a time extension if he wishes to launch an appeal against Justice Lee's findings.

A court previously heard new senior counsel had been brief on behalf of the man and the lodging of a notice to appeal was being thoroughly considered.

Mr Lehrmann must now launch such a notice by the end of the month.