Bruce Lehrmann was living a life of luxury at Seven’s expense, with ‘bags of cocaine, sex workers and lavish dinners at top restaurants’… but he’s been claiming CENTRELINK ever since he was branded a rapist

Bruce Lehrmann has been receiving $1,300 a month in Centrelink benefits since he was publicly accused of rape, while Channel Seven has funded his extravagant lifestyle.

The network paid Lehrmann’s rent in Balgowlah, on Sydney’s northern beaches, for 12 months as part of a lucrative $105,000 deal in exchange for exclusive interviews on its Spotlight program last year.

Former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach told the federal court that the network paid thousands of dollars for Lehrmann’s use of sex workers, Thai massages, cocaine and expensive dinners in an attempt to lure him into an exclusive deal.

Seven and the former Liberal Party staffer have strongly denied these claims.

The housing agreement expired in April, just weeks after Federal Court Judge Michael Lee ruled on the balance of probabilities that he raped his former colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.

Lehrmann appealed the verdict in May, and the case is scheduled for an emergency hearing on Friday morning.

His attorney Zali Burrows told the court that a bitter dispute over $117,000 had arisen between Lehrmann and his former libel firm Mark O’Brien.

Ms Burrows told the court that there were court costs associated with his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson Laws, but that Lehrmann did not have to pay these because he was in receipt of benefits.

Daily Mail Australia has learned that Lehrmann has been using the Austudy scheme since around 2021, when Ms Higgins first went public with her rape allegations in an interview with Wilkinson on Ten’s show, The Project.

Lehrmann, who has been unemployed since 2021, was able to use the study scheme instead of the jobseeker scheme because he is a part-time law student.

Before the appeal can proceed, Ten has asked Lehrmann to post a $200,000 bond to cover their costs in the event he loses.

The network has filed a request to permanently stay the appeal, meaning it cannot proceed if he cannot pay the deposit within 42 days. However, he will fight that request in a hearing on October 14.

During Friday’s hearing, Network Ten’s lawyer Tim Senior told the court that Lehrmann’s team had not filed an amended notice of appeal by the August 29 deadline, and he had no explanation as to why.

He said there was uncertainty about Lehrmann’s legal representation, the level of involvement of Ms Burrow and the timeline of the appeal.

‘We don’t have a date and it’s a matter for the court, but it’s very difficult for us to determine our position in these circumstances, [legal] “The counselor may or may not be aware,” he said.

“We don’t know why there is such a delay after so much time.”

Ms Burrows told the court that costs issues needed to be resolved before an amended notice of appeal could be filed.

The costs issues related to Lehrmann’s libel case against Network Ten and Wilkinson last year. As the loser of the case, he is expected to cover his opponent’s costs – worth around $2 million.

Judge Lee heard the costs proceedings, but they were adjourned pending a decision on the appeal.

Ms Burrows told the court that Lehrmann’s former law firm, Mark O’Brien, managed $117,000 in a trust.

The money came from Lehrmann’s combined $445,000 libel settlements with the ABC and news.com.au last year. The terms of the settlement stated that the money would cover his legal fees, rather than going into his personal bank account.

After the fees were paid, $117,000 remained, which Ms. Burrows said was to be used to fund Lehrmann’s appeal.

Mark O’Brien worked for Lehrmann on a ‘no cure no pay’ basis.

Judge Wendy Abraham appeared confused as to why Ms Burrows raised a costs issue – which is being dealt with by Judge Lee – in connection with the appeal.

“What does this have to do with me?” she said.

“This is an appeal… Why isn’t Judge Lee hearing this?”

Ms Burrows said she would make a request to the clerk regarding the $117,000, but asked for Judge Abraham’s assistance to expedite the process.

“The reason, Your Honour, why I am asking you to deal with the application instead of the Clerk is so that the matter can be dealt with as quickly as possible,” Ms Burrows said.

Judge Abraham: ‘Why couldn’t the clerk handle this quickly?’

Ms Burrows: ‘I’m not saying the Clerk can’t do it, but I would be grateful if you could make a recommendation as to whether this could be dealt with as a matter of priority.’

The judge said, “So you want this court—that’s me—to hear a case that you have filed with the clerk without any notice, so that you can win and settle?”

“You are bringing this up now, when we assume this has been going on for some time, when you are violating orders and I have no explanation as to why.”

Ms Burrows said: ‘It has taken some time to consider the costs agreements and my client has made a claim for reimbursement of those costs. [$117,000] costs, but it was returned due to a technical issue and will be resubmitted.’

Ten’s lawyer, Mr Senior, told the court it was “deeply troubling” that Ms Burrows intended to “hijack” the appeal proceedings for a costs issue being heard in another case.

“I don’t really know what to say,” he said, turning to look at his colleague Marlia Saunders, who looked equally confused.

“I am very concerned about the possibility that an amended appeal will be filed and the schedule will be thrown into disarray.”

The case will return to court later in September.