Lisa Wilkinson’s last chance: TV star launches fresh court bid over the part of the Bruce Lehrmann defamation judgment she did not like

Lisa Wilkinson has launched a new attempt to overturn part of a judgment handed down against her in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case.

Wilkinson’s lawyers filed a brief on her behalf in the Federal Court on Wednesday, arguing that Judge Michael Lee was wrong to rule against her and Network Ten on April 15.

Lehrmann sued the TV host and the television network for defamation over a 2021 episode of The Project in which Brittany Higgins publicly alleged that he raped her at Parliament House in 2019.

He was not named on the broadcast, but claimed friends and colleagues were able to identify him as her rapist.

In his findings earlier this year, Judge Lee found that Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins under the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. He filed an appeal on May 31 to overturn the verdict.

Wilkinson and Network Ten won the primary truth defense in the case due to the findings against Lehrmann.

However, they lost in a separate defense of qualified privilege when the judge ruled that Wilkinson and the Project team did not act reasonably in preparing the episode for broadcast.

Pictured: a bruise that Brittany Higgins claimed was the result of her rape. The court heard there was no evidence of the bruise before 2021 – two years after the rape

The appeal was filed in response to Lehrmann’s appeal and asked the court to reconsider the verdicts that were not in Wilkinson’s favor.

If Wilkinson’s suit were successful, it would restore her reputation.

According to the notice, Wilkinson argued that Judge Lee had made a series of errors in his defense of the truth rulings regarding Ms. Higgins’ credibility and Lehrmann’s sense of guilt.

The notice went on to detail errors in the qualified privilege rulings, claiming the judge “failed to give sufficient or any weight” to a range of factors surrounding Wilkinson’s work and career.

Wilkinson argues that Judge Lee ignored her “experience with survivors of sexual violence”, especially given that she had met Ms Higgins several times and had “expertise” on the subject.

It was further suggested that Judge Lee did not distinguish between Network Ten’s conduct and decisions and those of Wilkinson because she was an employee of a number of superiors.

In his judgment, Judge Lee condemned Ten and Wilkinson for failing to properly examine a photo of a bruise, which Ms Higgins said was the result of the 2019 rape.

The court heard there was no evidence the bruise photo existed before January 2021, the day she first met Wilkinson.

Bruce Lehrmann is photographed outside court on April 15, the day he lost his defamation lawsuit

In the notice, Wilkinson argued that Judge Lee did not place much weight on the fact that Wilkinson relied on Ms Higgins’ statutory declaration as evidence that the photo and bruise were the result of her rape.

It was further suggested that Wilkinson had no control over when Lehrmann was contacted by the network for comment.

The project’s producer, Angus Llewellyn, emailed Lehrmann on Friday afternoon, three days before the broadcast, and again on the day of the broadcast.

Judge Lee was not convinced that he had received those emails and made a finding against Wilkinson and Ten, but Wilkinson has now argued that Judge Lee erred in finding that Lehrmann had not received at least one of those emails. had received emails.

Wilkinson’s notice also asked the court to take into account the fact that it believed he had been given sufficient time to respond and had no reason to believe otherwise.

The message claimed that Judge Lee misinterpreted the introduction to the episode The Project, when Wilkinson said: “Claims of rape, roadblocks to a police investigation and a young woman forced to choose between her career and the pursuit of justice.” ‘

The judge ruled that Ms Higgins was not forced to choose between her career and the pursuit of justice and that there were no roadblocks to a police investigation.

He called these claims conspiratorial.

Wilkinson’s notice was prepared by her lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC, who represented her at the trial. She has billed Network Ten $1.8 million to cover her legal costs.

The appeal has yet to be heard in court.

Lehrmann may be required to provide security costs prior to an appeal. Failure to pay may result in the appeal not proceeding.