Eight months after a judge dismissed a defamation case by Bruce Lehrmann, Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson are still bickering over her $1.8 million legal bill.
The senior barrister expected to represent Bruce Lehrmann in his appeal of a judgment finding he raped former colleague Brittany Higgins wishes to remain unnamed for now, amid fears of trolling.
A cash-strapped Bruce Lehrmann has dodged a bid by Ten for $200,000 to pursue his appeal of a judgment that found he raped former colleague Brittany Higgins.
Bruce Lehrmann is probably “Australia’s most hated man” and should not have to pay $200,000 in security to appeal a defamation judgment that found he raped former colleague Brittany Higgins, a judge has heard.
Bruce Lehrmann has flagged a bid to claw back $117,000 he says his former legal team was not entitled to pay out of a trust account in his failed defamation case against Network Ten, saying he intends to use the sum to pay counsel to sign off on his appeal. In a case management hearing…
Bruce Lehrmann has secured new representation for his appeal of his failed defamation case against Network Ten over its coverage of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations, as he seeks to stay a $2 million costs order against him.
Network Ten has won $2 million in costs against Bruce Lehrmann in his failed defamation case over the broadcaster’s coverage of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations, after agreeing to a substantial haircut on its $3.7 million legal bill.
Network Ten has largely succeeded in its bid for indemnity costs against Bruce Lehrmann for his failed defamation case over allegations he raped former colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House, allegations the broadcaster proved at trial were true.
Bruce Lehrmann had no behind-the-scenes financial backer for his failed and costly defamation case against Network Ten but had entered a no win, no fee arrangement with his solicitors, a court has heard.
The judge overseeing Bruce Lehrmann’s failed defamation case against Network Ten has slammed as misleading comments that his judgment vindicated the broadcaster, and questioned whether the remarks disentitled it to maximum defence costs.