FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 173

SUMMARY

In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in cases of public interest, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court's reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be made available on the internet at the Court's website. This summary is also available there.

On the evening of 15 February 2021, Network Ten Pty Limited broadcast a special edition of The Project. The broadcast was presented by Ms Lisa Wilkinson, an experienced journalist. The broadcast concerned, among other things, a claim that Ms Brittany Higgins, a member of staff of a Federal Minister, had been sexually assaulted by a senior work colleague on the couch in the Minister’s office in Parliament House. The colleague was later identified to be Mr Bruce Lehrmann. The broadcast was republished on The Project’s YouTube Channel and the 10 Play website.

Mr Lehrmann brought defamation proceedings in this Court against Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson. He claimed that the broadcast conveyed four imputations, the defamatory sting of which was that he had raped Ms Higgins. Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson defended Mr Lehrmann’s claim. Their principal defence was one of justification or substantial truth. That defence hinged on them proving on the balance of probabilities that Mr Lehrmann had in fact raped Ms Higgins.

Following a lengthy trial, the primary judge upheld Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s truth defence. His Honour found that Mr Lehrmann had engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins in circumstances that involved ‘non-advertent recklessness’ on the part of Mr Lehrmann as to whether Ms Higgins had consented. Those actions fell within the ordinary meaning of rape. The primary judge also made a provisional determination in relation to damages on the assumption that, contrary to the findings that he had made, Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s defences had failed, and Mr Lehrmann had succeeded in proving that he had been defamed. His Honour’s provisional assessment of the appropriate damages was $20,000 in total.

Mr Lehrmann brought an appeal. He essentially advanced four grounds of appeal.

First, he asserted that the trial had been conducted in a way that was procedurally unfair to him because the details of the rape as found by the primary judge were different to the details that had been alleged by Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson as the basis for the truth defence. He alleged that those details were of a forceful and violent rape, not a rape constituted by non-violent sexual intercourse with mere inadvertent recklessness as to consent, as found by the primary judge.

Second, and relatedly, Mr Lehrmann claimed that the publications would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer that the rape in question was a violent rape with express lack of consent, as distinct from non-consensual sex that occurred in the circumstances as found by the primary judge.

Third, he contended that the primary judge erred in finding that Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson had discharged the burden of proof in respect of the rape. He submitted that his Honour should instead have concluded that he was not able to make a finding one way or the other as to whether Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins.

Finally, Mr Lehrmann argued that his claim should have succeeded and the damages award in his favour should be much more than $20,000.

The Full Court has determined to dismiss Mr Lehrmann’s appeal with costs. The Court has found that the primary judge did not err in any of the ways alleged by Mr Lehrmann in his grounds of appeal and submissions.

The Full Court has found that the way in which the primary judge dealt with and determined the proceeding was not procedurally unfair to Mr Lehrmann. The facts as found by the primary judge fell within the terms of Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s pleaded truth defence. Mr Lehrmann was also well and truly aware that the case against him included a claim that he had been reckless as to Ms Higgins’ consent.

As for Mr Lehrmann’s claim concerning the meaning conveyed by the publications, the sting of the imputations conveyed by the publications was that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins. The Full Court has found that the ordinary reasonable viewer of the broadcast would understand rape as involving sexual intercourse occurring without the consent of the person (the victim), with the other person (the perpetrator) either knowing that the victim is not consenting, or being reckless as to whether they are consenting. Recklessness, in that context, encompasses the perpetrator not caring whether the victim is consenting, either as a conscious lack of regard for whether the person is consenting, or complete indifference as to whether they are consenting. The Full Court has found that the primary judge’s factual findings concerning Mr Lehrmann’s actions fell within that ordinary meaning of rape.

The Full Court has also rejected Mr Lehrmann’s contention that the primary judge erred in finding that Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson had discharged their burden of proving that he had raped Ms Higgins. This was not a case where there were two competing accounts each of which had been found to lack any credibility. While the primary judge made some adverse findings concerning the credibility of Ms Higgins’ account, his Honour nevertheless accepted key parts of her evidence about the sexual assault. In contrast, the primary judge rejected the entirety of Mr Lehrmann’s account and found that he had deliberately lied in important respects. In those circumstances, it was open to the primary judge to find that Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson had proved to the requisite civil standard that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins.

The Full Court has also accepted a contention advanced by Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson that, on the facts as found by the primary judge, his Honour should have concluded that Mr Lehrmann knew that Ms Higgins did not consent to having sexual intercourse. The Full Court has found, based on the unchallenged findings made by the primary judge, that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts known and observable to Mr Lehrmann at the time he had sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins is that Mr Lehrmann did turn his mind to whether Ms Higgins consented to sex, was aware that she was not consenting, but proceeded nonetheless. The acceptance of that contention provides another basis for upholding the primary judge’s finding that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins and that the truth defence pleaded by Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson had been made out.

Given the findings made concerning Mr Lehrmann’s grounds of appeal concerning the truth defence, the Full Court considered that it was unnecessary to consider his arguments concerning damages. It was also unnecessary to consider Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson’s contentions concerning the provisional assessment of damages.

The Full Court has also found that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to give detailed consideration to the arguments advanced by Ms Wilkinson in support of her contention that, if Mr Lehrmann’s appeal in relation to the truth defence was upheld, the primary judge should have upheld her separate defence of qualified privilege. That defence was based on the contention that the publications concerned a matter of public interest and that Ms Wilkinson’s conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. Some aspects of those contentions have, however, been addressed in the reasons for judgment.

This judgment summary is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons for judgment of the Full Court.

JUSTICE MICHAEL WIGNEY

JUSTICE CRAIG COLVIN

JUSTICE WENDY ABRAHAM

3 December 2025