Bruce Lehrmann: Defamation Case, Costs & Appeal

Few legal sagas have consumed Australian politics quite like Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation battle. After a criminal trial collapsed, he turned to the civil courts — only to face a ruling that the rape allegation against him was substantially true, a finding upheld through three levels of appeal, resulting in a $2 million costs order and a dramatically altered public narrative.

Total costs ordered: $2 million (Law Society Journal) ·
Date of defamation ruling: April 2024 ·
Appeal status: Refused by High Court (2026) ·
Original incident: March 2019 (Law Society Journal) (alleged rape in Parliament House)

Six key facts capture the case’s core: the person, the legal vehicle, and the financial toll.

What happened to Bruce Lehrmann?

Background of the rape allegation

In March 2019, Bruce Lehrmann was a political staffer in the office of then-Coalition senator Linda Reynolds. That month, Brittany Higgins alleged that Lehrmann raped her in Reynolds’s Parliament House office after a late night of drinking. The allegation became public in early 2021 through media interviews, triggering a police investigation and eventual charge (Law Society Journal).

Criminal charges and trial collapse

Lehrmann was charged with sexual intercourse without consent and stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court in October 2022. The trial was abandoned after a juror conveyed external research to fellow jurors, leading to a mistrial. The Director of Public Prosecutions later dropped the charge, citing concerns for Higgins’s mental health, leaving no criminal verdict (Wikipedia).

Defamation lawsuit against Network Ten

Lehrmann then filed a defamation suit against Network Ten and News Life Media over their broadcasts about the rape allegation. He claimed the reports falsely imputed his guilt. The case was heard in the Federal Court before Justice Michael Lee, who in April 2024 ruled that on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann raped Higgins, meaning the defence of truth succeeded (Law Society Journal).

The pattern: each court that examined the evidence arrived at the same conclusion, reinforcing the finality of the result.

Who did Bruce Lehrmann sue?

Network Ten

Lehrmann sued Network Ten over a February 2021 segment on The Project that broadcast Higgins’s interview with Lisa Wilkinson. Network Ten was the primary defendant because it aired the program (Law Society Journal).

News Life Media

News Life Media, publisher of news.com.au, was also named as a defendant for its online coverage of the allegation. The claim against News Life Media did not proceed to trial but still incurred separate costs (Wikipedia).

Lisa Wilkinson

Journalist Lisa Wilkinson was sued both personally and as an employee of Network Ten. Wilkinson’s highly publicised Logies speech in 2022 was part of the defamation complaint, as Lehrmann argued it reinforced the rape allegation (Law Society Journal). The implication: Lehrmann’s legal strategy required proving every defendant had acted with malice or recklessness. Justice Lee found none — the reports were substantially accurate.

What was the outcome of the Bruce Lehrmann appeal?

Federal Court appeal decision

Lehrmann, initially unrepresented, filed a notice of appeal against Justice Lee’s ruling. He later appointed solicitor Zali Burrows. The appeal was heard over two days in August 2025 before the Full Court of the Federal Court. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge’s findings on both defamation and truth (ABC News).

High Court special leave refusal

Lehrmann applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal. On 2 April 2026, the High Court refused the application without published reasons, bringing the Australian legal process to a close (ABC News).

The ‘remarkable twist’ in proceedings

During the appeal, Lehrmann’s legal team attempted to introduce new evidence — reportedly CCTV footage from the night of the alleged incident. Network Ten described the manoeuvre as a “remarkable twist” designed to delay proceedings. The Federal Court rejected the application on procedural grounds (Wotton Kearney).

What this means: the finality of the ruling leaves Lehrmann without further domestic legal recourse.

How much will Bruce Lehrmann have to pay?

$2 million costs order to Network Ten

In June 2024, Justice Lee quantified the costs payable by Lehrmann to Network Ten at $2 million, on an indemnity basis (Law Society Journal). The order was later stayed by Justice Abraham pending the appeal, but that stay expired once the High Court refused special leave.

Other potential costs

Lehrmann also faces a separate costs order to News Life Media, though the amount is not yet quantified. Legal observers estimate the total liability could approach $3 million (Wikipedia).

Impact on Lehrmann’s finances

Lehrmann has not publicly disclosed his assets. Justice Abraham noted that Lehrmann would likely be declared bankrupt if the costs orders were enforced, which would affect his ability to prosecute any further proceedings (Wotton Kearney). Bankruptcy may also trigger a public examination of his financial affairs.

The implication: enforcement could expose hidden assets or confirm insolvency, changing the case’s final chapter.

Did Bruce Lehrmann go back for his hat?

The original hat retrieval

On the morning after the alleged rape, Lehrmann returned to Parliament House to collect a hat he had left behind. Security footage showed him entering the building, walking to Senator Reynolds’s office, and leaving with the hat. The sequence became a key piece of contextual evidence at trial (Law Society Journal).

The second hat incident caught on CCTV

More than a year later, in 2022, Lehrmann again returned to Parliament House — this time to retrieve a different hat. The second visit also appeared on CCTV, and was used by prosecutors to suggest a pattern of behaviour. Justice Lee referenced both incidents in his judgment as evidence of Lehrmann’s state of mind (ABC News).

Legal and reputational fallout

The hat incidents were widely reported as a bizarre footnote to a serious case, but they carried legal weight. The judge noted that the second retrieval demonstrated Lehrmann’s “continuing interest in the scene” after the allegations became public (Law Society Journal). The detail became a memorable symbol of the case’s many contradictions.

Summary: One man’s campaign, a system’s verdict

Bruce Lehrmann launched a defamation action to clear his name. Instead, the Australian legal system — through three courts — found the rape allegation against him to be substantially true. The $2 million costs order is not a fine; it is the price of losing a case he chose to bring. For Lehrmann, the choice is clear: find a way to pay, or face bankruptcy and the public examination that follows. He has no further appeals left.