The spectacular collapse of Bruce Lehrmann's defamation case against Channel Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson stands not as a story of vindication, but as a grim blueprint for how not to pursue litigation. The case, which ended with Lehrmann being ordered to pay the defendants' multimillion-pound legal costs, offers a stark lesson for any prospective litigant whose claim is built on shaky ground.
A Case Built on Shifting Sands
Lehrmann, a former political staffer, sued over a 2021 report by The Project which aired an interview with his colleague Brittany Higgins, who alleged she was raped in a minister's office in 2019. Lehrmann has consistently denied the allegation. His criminal trial for sexual assault was abandoned due to juror misconduct and a retrial was not pursued due to concerns for Higgins' mental health. No findings have been made against him.
However, his foray into defamation law proved disastrous. The judge found that, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann did rape Brittany Higgins. This finding, while not a criminal conviction, was fatal to his defamation claim. The case unravelled not because of a technicality, but because the core assertion of his innocence was rejected by the court.
The Staggering Financial Aftermath
The financial repercussions for Lehrmann are colossal. He is now liable for his own legal team's fees, estimated to be substantial, and for the costs of Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, which are reported to run into the millions. This exemplifies the high-stakes gamble of defamation proceedings.
Unlike in other jurisdictions, the UK and Australia generally operate under the principle that the loser pays the winner's costs. This serves as a powerful deterrent against frivolous or weak claims. For Lehrmann, the pursuit of vindication through the courts has resulted in a crushing financial burden and a definitive, public finding against him on the central fact in dispute.
Lessons for Future Litigants
This saga should be studied closely by anyone considering litigation, particularly defamation. The key takeaways are brutally clear. First, a litigant must have an unshakeably strong factual foundation. If the core facts of your case are vulnerable, the entire edifice can collapse with severe consequences.
Second, the financial risk is immense and often asymmetrical. Media defendants, like Channel Ten, have deep resources and are prepared for a protracted fight. An individual litigant faces the prospect of financial ruin if they lose.
Finally, litigation is a brutal truth-seeking process. It can expose a claimant to greater scrutiny and worse outcomes than the original publication they sought to challenge. Bruce Lehrmann sought to clear his name but ended with a judicial finding that has profoundly damaged his reputation.
His story is now an inspiration only to those whose cases have already crashed and burned—a textbook example of how a legal battle can compound, rather than resolve, a personal and public crisis.
