Inside the ‘laughable’ deal Ten bosses offered Bruce Lehrmann to walk away from his bitter legal fight with the network – and the threat they made if he refused

EXCLUSIVE

Network Ten has presented Bruce Lehrmann with a deal to walk away from his failed defamation action with no damages, no costs and no apology – and the threat of a hefty legal bill even if he wins.

The network’s settlement offer was presented to the Federal Court on Wednesday during a hearing in the defamation proceedings, during which Ten argued that Lehrmann should have accepted the deal.

According to court documents, the offer was sent to Lehrmann’s lawyers at Mark O’Brien Legal on August 31 last year – four months before the case was heard in court.

Instead of offering compensation or an apology for accidentally identifying him as The Project’s rapist, as Lehrmann had requested, the network suggested he drop the case and walk away as if nothing had happened.

Lehrmann was given two weeks to consider the offer, but it took his lawyers just two hours to reject it on his behalf via a terse email, which stated: “Our client is rejecting that offer.”

He lost the defamation case on April 15, when Judge Michael Lee found on the balance of probabilities that he raped Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019 – in much the way she described to Lisa Wilkinson in The Project in 2021.

Despite the ruling against Lehrmann, Judge Lee rejected Ten’s offer, telling the court on Wednesday that it was unlikely to be accepted because there was nothing in the way of financial compensation.

Network Ten’s case revolved around a defense of the truth, which involved trying to prove that Ms Higgins’ rape claims were true and therefore Lehrmann was not defamed on air – even though he was not named in the program.

In the settlement offer, Network Ten told Lehrmann he was likely to lose the case and face extreme criticism, and brought up a moment in his interview on Channel Seven’s Spotlight programme, which aired in June last year.

In that interview, Lehrmann said he had nothing to lose, but Network Ten said he would have a lot to lose if the verdict was not in his favor.

In Spotlight, Lehrmann said: “I accept that fifty percent of the country, and probably more, thinks I’m a rapist, okay.”

Rather than focusing on an attractive offer, Network Ten’s settlement proposal highlighted the potential consequences for Lehrmann if he were to go to trial.

It read: “If our client’s truth defense is successful, the remaining ’50 percent of the country’ will have to accept that your client is a rapist.

‘That much is clear. Such a finding would almost certainly be fatal.”

According to the network, successful plaintiffs often have “Pyrrhic victories,” meaning their reputations suffer because of the nature of the evidence presented at trial, even if the court ruled in their favor.

“Even if Mr. Lehrmann is successful in these proceedings (which we consider unlikely), he will not emerge acquitted,” the offer read.

“If he loses (as we think likely), he will suffer a devastating blow from which he cannot realistically hope to ever recover.”

Network Ten went on to describe The Project as a ‘thoughtful, careful and robust’ programme, adding: ‘There is perhaps no better example of this than the segment at issue in this case, which was approached with care and diligence.’

The actual settlement offer was in the last part of the letter and requested that the case be dropped and no costs orders be imposed.

However, Network Ten warned Lehrmann that he could face a legal bill even if he wins the case, for costs incurred during a two-day hearing in early 2023 to extend the time within which he could bring a defamation action.

Normally the term is one year after the broadcast, but Lehrmann launched his case after that period.

He successfully argued that there was no way he could have filed a defamation case with a year of deployment because he was accused of sexual assault during that time.

Despite losing that particular hearing, Network Ten threatened to charge Lehrmann his legal fees for that hearing regardless of whether he won the defamation case or not.

‘Despite the fact that [Lehrmann] have obtained an extension of time, some, if not all, of which we expect [Network Ten’s] costs of preparation and resistance [Lehrmann’s] extension of the application period to be recoverable even if your client is ultimately successful in the proceedings (which is unlikely),” it said.

Lehrmann lost the defamation case on April 15, when Judge Michael Lee found it was likely he raped Brittany Higgins in much the way she described in The Project in 2021.

The costs hearing was held on Wednesday to determine what Lehrmann must pay as the loser of the lawsuit.

Network Ten had argued in its submissions that Lehrmann’s rejection of the offer was “unreasonable” and that he should therefore be liable for more costs.

During the hearing, judge Michael Lee slammed Network Ten for the offer, saying it was unlikely Lehrmann would have accepted it because of a deal it appeared to have struck with Brittany Higgins.

He referred to an email the network received from Ms. Higgins’ lawyer, Leon Zwier, asking that no payment or apology be given to Lehrmann to resolve the matter.

‘On the evidence, it appears that Network Ten has put itself in a situation where it would make no settlement offer other than through a footbridge. [settlement offer],’ he said.

“The idea that you could make an offer to resolve the proceedings or settle the case for even a dollar was immediately thrown off the table because you apparently agreed with Ms. Higgins that no payment would be made.”

He asked how that settlement offer was consistent with the overarching purpose of a defamation lawsuit, which is normally the restoration of damaged reputations.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in court,” Judge Lee said.

Dr. Collins said the judge only had evidence from that specific moment, not the full picture.

He assured the court that the idea that Ms. Higgins testified because her conditions were met was false.