Bruce Lehrmann to learn fate of his Federal Court appeal of failed defamation case

Bruce Lehrmann is heading back into the lion's den for his hat for a second time, as he gets ready to learn the fate of his Federal Court appeal.

It was Justice Michael Lee who originally deployed that quote, when he found the former Liberal staffer had, on the balance of probabilities, raped his colleague Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in Canberra in 2019.

Mr Lehrmann's failed defamation case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson delivered what the criminal courts did not: a formal, though civil, finding against him.

But he still maintains his innocence.

Shortly after the ruling he lodged an appeal, writing the first statement of claim himself, before getting legal help.

But the case before three Federal Court judges was a difficult affair, running for only two of the three days set aside in August.

Mr Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows started the case explaining she would have to do her best to represent her client because he couldn't afford a barrister.

Her requests for adjournments were refused, leading to the early finish.

It was a difficult task, and she is about to learn if she has succeeded or not. 

Challenge on four grounds

Ms Burrows challenged Justice Lee's judgment on four grounds, starting with the finding that Network Ten's interview was substantially true, which ended the defamation case.

Ms Burrows told the appeal court that Justice Lee had made up his own case and gone "on his own fact-finding mission", basing his findings on facts that were not part of the case, and denying Mr Lehrmann procedural fairness.

She told the court Mr Lehrmann would have run a different case if he had known how the ruling would unfold.

In the second ground, Ms Burrows said the judge had made an error in his assessment about how an "ordinary reasonable person" would have perceived the interview on Network Ten's The Project.

She said the sexual assault was portrayed differently to the allegation which emerged in court.

Ms Burrows said on the facts available the truth defence had not been established.

And she also took aim at the "mere" $20,000 the judge said he would have awarded had Mr Lehrmann won the case.

The Appeal Court judges questioned the grounds, with Justice Craig Colvin urging Ms Burrows to spell out just how Justice Lee had found a "different" case.

"The findings His Honour has made are all within the four corners of what was described," Justice Colvin said.

The court will reveal its decision on whether the findings against Mr Lehrmann should stand.

How did we get here?

Until the end of the defamation case, there had been no findings against Mr Lehrmann, after the criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court collapsed because of a juror's misconduct.

The original allegations were that, after a night out with colleagues, Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins in the office of their then-boss Senator Linda Reynolds in March 2019.

Ms Higgins maintained she been asleep and had woken in the middle of the assault.

The crime was reported soon afterwards, but charges were not pursued until 2021, leading to the disastrous jury trial in 2022.

After the trial the charges were abandoned.

Mr Lehrmann, who maintains his innocence, tried to sue — not Ms Higgins, but those who made the allegations against him public.

It was journalist Samantha Maiden who initially broke the story, and Mr Lehrmann settled with her and her publisher, Newscorp.

But he took on Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over an interview on The Project with Ms Higgins in which she made her allegations, although she did not name him.

Mr Lehrmann argued he was clearly identifiable.

In the end he lost the defamation case on the basis the report was substantially true.

The trial took a variety of twists and turns.

Many of the original witnesses from the criminal trial were called to give evidence, including Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins.

At one point it had to be reopened to hear from former Seven Network producer Taylor Auerbach, who had been tasked with "baby sitting" Mr Lehrmann as he was persuaded to take part in two interviews for its current affairs program, Spotlight.

That gave rise to spectacular allegations about expensive dinners, and allegations about drugs and sex workers.

Seven Network said it was "appalled" and did not pay for any sex workers or illegal drugs.

Mr Lehrmann also gave evidence over five days, which he had not done in his criminal trial.

The revelations included that Mr Lehrmann had received a years' accommodation worth around $100,000 for an exclusive access agreement with Seven Network.

Ms Higgins also had to reveal during the hearing that she received a payout of just over $2 million in compensation from the commonwealth.

But it was all to no avail on Mr Lehrmann's part, when the judge found against him.

Is it over?

Whatever the outcome of the appeal there will be consequences for all.

Justice Lee awarded $2 million against Mr Lehrmann in costs for the failed defamation case, which have been put on hold pending the appeal result.

If Mr Lehrmann wins, that could be set aside.

But it will not necessarily deliver a jackpot, after Justice Lee also said if he had found in favour of Mr Lehrmann he would only have awarded total damages of $20,000.

And if Mr Lehrmann loses, bankruptcy proceedings loom.

The court has already heard he is impecunious, and cannot even pay his lawyers, most of whom have worked pro-bono.

Either way, the journey is not over yet.