Lisa Wilkinson spends an anxious Christmas with her daughter while Bruce Lehrmann is all-smiles with his mother as they await the outcome of high-profile defamation case

Lisa Wilkinson spent an anxious Christmas Day with her daughter, while Bruce Lehrmann was all smiles as he shopped with his mother as the pair awaited the outcome of a high-profile defamation case.

The award-winning journalist appeared distracted as she ran some last-minute errands with her daughter Billi and husband Peter FitzSimons in Sydney on Monday.

Wearing a green shirt, black pants and sandals, Wilkinson opted to shield her face with sunglasses and a wide-brimmed hat as she refueled her car.

A casually dressed Billi had her arms full of belongings and clutched a brown paper bag, while Mr. FitzSimons stuffed a bag of ice into the trunk.

Wilkinson at one point held two large hardcover books under her arm.

By comparison, Mr Lehrmann appeared cheerful as he picked up a bag of dog food from a Sydney pet store while shopping with his mother.

The ex-Liberal staffer wore a dark green button-up shirt, brown shorts and sneakers as he balanced a large bag of food on his hip.

He smiled as he left the pet store and also chose to cover his face with sunglasses.

Mr Lehrmann appears to have traveled from her home in southern Queensland to be with her only son on Christmas Day.

A court previously heard that Lehrmann's father died when he was two, leaving his mother to raise him and his sister on benefits.

She wore a white shirt decorated with silver stars, white pants and white sneakers for the shopping day and held a plastic bag in her hand.

The pair were later seen at Lehrmann's North Beach apartment, the property Channel Seven paid for to secure an interview with him.

They were joined at the unit in Balgowlah, one of Sydney's most exclusive suburbs, by another couple and a golden retriever.

The rent for the property stood at $1,300 per week this year.

Mr Lehrmann revealed the broadcaster had agreed to pay his rent during cross-examination by Wilkinson's lawyer at the federal court on November 28.

It was one of a series of explosive revelations revealed in Lehrmann's high-profile defamation case against Wilkinson and Network Ten.

He is suing for an interview that aired on The Project and online, which detailed Ms Higgins' allegations that she was raped at Parliament House in 2019.

Although Mr. Lehrmann was not named in the interview, he claims he was identifiable.

Sue Chrysanthou SC asked Mr Lehrmann about what he received in return for his interview with Seven's Spotlight program earlier this year.

The channel previously said it “made no payment to Bruce Lehrmann for the interview,” but “helped with housing as part of the filming of the report.”

“Was it part of that agreement that you were paid by Channel Seven for twelve months' accommodation?” asked Mrs. Chrysanthou.

Mr Lehrmann replied: 'That's all…that's what I get.'

The lawyer continued: 'That happened from June 2023 and paid until June 2024?'

Mr. Lehrmann responded, “Um, well, yeah. For filming in those places.'

He explained that part of the first Spotlight interview, which aired on Channel Seven in June, was partly filmed at that property.

As Judge Michael Lee pondered his ruling over the summer holidays, Ms Wilkinson's legal adviser, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, put forward a wild theory about why Ms Higgins was found naked by security that night.

The lawyer suggested Ms Higgins could have taken off her cocktail dress because there had been a “kind of freak heatwave” in Canberra that evening and the air conditioning in Parliament House had “broken down”.

Her sarcastic theory – the temperature in Canberra that night at the airport was a mild 16.7 degrees Celsius – was intended to convince Judge Lee that the only rational explanation for her undressing was “that sex was taking place”.

The criminal trial against Mr Lehrmann was halted due to juror misconduct and a subsequent retrial was called off due to concerns about Ms Higgins' mental health, leaving no judicial verdict on what happened that night.

The result is that it is up to Judge Lee to determine whether Wilkinson and Network 10's report is covered by a truth defense and whether, on the balance of probabilities, an assault occurred.

His task will be tough as Judge Lee previously told the court that parts of the evidence from both Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann in the trial cannot be relied on.

“The two main witnesses have real credit problems and several parts of each witness's evidence simply cannot be accepted,” Judge Lee said.

Judge Lee will also have to decide whether Network 10 and Wilkinson's claims are covered by a truth defense, in which case they will not have to pay anything.

If he finds that this is not the case, significant damages and legal costs may be awarded to Mr. Lehrmann.

Network Ten and Wilkinson argue that the segment was a matter of public interest and its preparation was reasonable, and therefore should fall under qualified privilege and they should not be liable for damages.

However, there is also another scenario, in which Judge Lee finds that Mr. Lehrmann was not identifiable from The Project's interview with Ms. Higgins.

The month-long defamation trial concluded on Friday and Judge Lee is expected to rule in early 2024.