It may be a case of let the battle begin when the Federal Court resumes today to consider costs in Bruce Lehrmann's failed defamation case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
The case, brought over coverage of Brittany Higgins's rape allegation, failed because Justice Michael Lee found on the balance of probability Mr Lehrmann did rape Ms Higgins at Parliament House in Canberra after a night out drinking with colleagues in 2019.
That meant Network Ten's truth defence succeeded, despite the court finding Mr Lehrmann had been defamed by an interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in March 2021.
The interview was one of two with Ms Higgins published that day, when she first alleged she had been raped — although Mr Lehrmann was not named.
But he was later charged and stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court.
The trial ended abruptly due to juror misconduct and a retrial was abandoned leaving no findings against Mr Lehrmann, which then led to the defamation case.
Bruce Lehrmann urging 'nuanced' approach
So far, no figures for the cost of the case have been mentioned, but the speculation is it will be in the millions.
Network Ten says it is entitled to payment in full from the timeMr Lehrmann rejected a "walk away" offer in August last year.
Mr Lehrmann has urged the court to take a "nuanced" approach and order Ten to pay some of his costs after the court rejected Ten's qualified privilege defences.
"Given this court's findings as to the failure of those defences and the fundamental missteps taken by the respondents in publishing The Project broadcast … it is open to this court to conclude that the applicant should be compensated for the time and expense in having to establish that the qualified privilege defences were bound to fail," his lawyers' submissions said.
One area of costs yet to be determined relates to the special application Mr Lehrmann made to the court to allow him to mount his defamation case.
That was necessary because he had lodged the case more than a year after the interview on The Project, gambling on the network not being able to prove its truth case.
"He engaged in a prolonged and conscious effort to mislead the court, and deliberately concocted evidence in that endeavour," Ten's submissions said.
"In doing so [he] put Ten to the cost of defending a baseless proceeding."
But Mr Lehrmann's lawyers said the fact he won the extension was relevant in the costs debate.
"It is open to this court to consider the applicant's success in the Limitation Extension application when considering the cost order to be made," his lawyers' submissions said.
Ten arguing it should not have to cover all Wilkinson's costs
But Ten has another battle on its hands.
Lisa Wilkinson may have won the first round, with Network Ten conceding it was responsible for indemnifying her for reasonable costs, but there is still a bitter battle to come over the quantum.
An initial estimate of her personal legal costs before the trial ran to more than $700,000.
Ten said they argued the main issue that decided the case, andthere was no difference on many of these issues between its case and that of Ms Wilkinson.
"Ms Wilkinson was not entitled to incur costs in respect of her separate interests as she pleased on the assumption that Network Ten would ultimately pick up the bill," Ten's submissions said.
"She was required to incur costs in a responsible manner, having regard to how those costs might be minimised given the separate but related work being undertaken by Network Ten."
But Ten said it should not have to pay where work was duplicated unreasonably.
Plans are already afoot to have the costs determined by a referee.
Today, Network Ten will ask the court to set rules about how the costs should be allocated.
Ms Wilkinson's lawyers said it was a matter for the court, but they noted her particular circ*mstances.
"The applicant elected to sue Ms Wilkinson personally, a litigation choice made by him," the submissions said.
And that personal choice meant Ms Wilkinson had a particular reason to seek independent legal help.
But there is one bill Mr Lehrmann will have to pay.
The court has ordered him to reimburse Ms Wilkinson's husband Peter FitzSimons for $4,616, for costs incurred to meet a subpoena in the case.
The costs hearing, like all hearings in the case, will be broadcast on the Federal Court YouTube channel, and begins at 2:15pm.
