On 15 April 2024 Justice Lee handed down his decision in the case of Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369. This matter has attracted a large amount of media attention and for this reason alone it was interesting to watch Justice Lee read his decision via live stream on YouTube: Judgment livestreamed on YouTube. Lee J described the underlying case as having become a “cause celebre”, meaning one that attracts widespread controversy and heated public debate.
Our selection of the top stoic humorous quotes from Justice Lee
Paragraph 2 – “Indeed, given its unexpected detours and the collateral damage it has occasioned, it might be more fitting to describe it as an omnishambles”.[1]
Paragraph 8 – “… this is a credit case involving two people who are both, in different ways, unreliable historians”.[2]
Paragraph 10 – “To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement”. – referring to Lehrmann’s credibility.
Paragraph 12 – “… trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke”.[3] – referring to the cover up allegation argued by Brittany Higgins.
Paragraph 152 – “But irrespective of legal obligation, there are gradations of the seriousness of untruths: an untruthful person may just be all mouth and trousers; or be recklessly indifferent to the truth or, by way of compulsion, finds it difficult to discern between what is true and untrue…”[4] – when commenting on the Hyperbolic submissions made about the credit of Mr Lehrmann.
Paragraph 155 – “When confronted by this inconsistency, his attempt to explain it away by suggesting the attraction he felt for Ms Higgins was ‘just like [the attraction] I can find [in] anybody else in this [court]room, irrespective of gender’ was as disconcerting as it was unconvincing”.[5] – referring to Lehrmann denying his attraction to Higgins.
Paragraph 158 – “Mr Lehrmann must have known that the relevant CCTV footage (Ex R42 / Ex 17A) would be examined by some with the intensity that others analyse the Zapruder film”.[6] – a reference to the famous footage of John F Kennedy allegedly being assassinated by a lone gunman.
Paragraph 200 – “As to the book, as the saying goes, an autobiography usually reveals nothing bad about its writer except his memory”.[7] – referring to Lehrmann’s submission on the “inaccuracies and inconsistencies” within the draft manuscript of Higgins’ book.
Paragraph 236 – “Having dealt with these unnecessary complications raised at the heel of the hunt, I now go back to the real point”.[8] – when referring to the Commonwealth Deed and the credit of Ms Higgins.
Paragraph 397 – “Ms Higgins seems by this stage to be ebullient, putting her hands in the air and is evidently in high spirits; although it is easy to be distracted at this point in the video by two happy middle-aged ladies re-enacting what might be a scene out of Mamma Mia in the background”.[9] – referring to the background distractions of the CCTV from The Dock.
Paragraph 422 – “Even if he was in the doghouse because he had stayed out late, I think it is safe to conclude that the process of getting into a flat he shared with his girlfriend would have been a significantly less elaborate exercise”.[10] – referring to the Lehrmann’s claim that he went back to Parliament House to retrieve his keys, despite the complicated process required to enter his office.
Paragraph 451 – “Mr Fairweather, although an experienced security guard, was not a breathalyser in human form”.[11] – referring to the security guard’s assessment of Lehrmann and Higgins.
Paragraph 462 – “Demonstrating his forensic difficulty with his representations concerning the Scottish libation, his evidence on this topic at trial was all over the shop”.[12] – referring to Mr Lehrmann’s evidence about having Whisky at the office.
Paragraph 465 – “I have already said enough to indicate that I consider Mr Lehrmann’s account to be an elaborate fancy”.[13]
Paragraph 468 – “… one assumes there would have been ways of painting this information more favourably than coming back to the office for no reason other than to luxuriate while imbibing strong liquor”.[14]
Paragraph 516 – “Intuitively, given what had been happening, one would think it likely the drinking continued given what we know about Mr Lehrmann encouraging Ms Higgins to imbibe and the rationale given by him for them both to come back to the Suite. After all, Mr Lehrmann said he was going to show Ms Higgins whisky – not Qing Dynasty ceramics”.[15] – referring to whether Lehrmann continued drinking in the ministerial suite.
Paragraph 573 – “Given he had satisfied himself, and that he knew his girlfriend was awake and was attempting to contact him, calling an Uber and getting out of the Ministerial private office with celerity (and leaving Ms Higgins undressed) is the action of a cad, but is nonetheless explicable”.[16]
Paragraph 1091 – “Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat”.[17] – referring to the Chief Justice’s declaration of a mistrial due to juror misconduct.
Links and further references
Cases
Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369
Judgment livestreamed on Youtube
Further information
This article is intended to provide a look into some of what we consider to be stoic humour in the judgement of Justice Lee. It is not complete and we consider that there are also likely to be others!
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
[1] Lee J, paragraph 2, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[2] Lee J, paragraph 8, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[3] Lee J, paragraph 12, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[4] Lee J, paragraph 152, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[5] Lee J, paragraph 155, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[6] Lee J, paragraph 158, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[7] Lee J, paragraph 200, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[8] Lee J, paragraph 236, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[9] Lee J, paragraph 397, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[10] Lee J, paragraph 422, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[11] Lee J, paragraph 451, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[12] Lee J, paragraph 462, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[13] Lee J, paragraph 465, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[14] Lee J, paragraph 468, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[15] Lee J, paragraph 516, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[16] Lee J, paragraph 573, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
[17] Lee J, paragraph 1091, Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369.
Recent insights
-
What does a notice to admit mean in legal proceedings?
Discover how a Notice to Admit can help you resolve civil legal proceedings more quickly and cost-effectively. Learn how this under-utilised tool can help you identify facts and documents quickly and easily.
-
Director’s right to review company records
As a director, it is important to understand your obligations and rights, including the right to access the company books. Explore this further in this article, which examines the case of Oswal v Burrup Holdings Limited [2011] FCA 609 and the implications of a company refusing a director access.
-
Using discovery documents for other purposes
The Harman Undertaking, established in 1983, requires documents disclosed during civil litigation not to be used in other Court proceedings. This article examines exceptions, when same parties are involved, and suggests that special circumstances must be established to receive leave of the Court.
-
Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising
Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.
-
Uber found in breach of Australian privacy laws
This article provides an overview of interesting decisions of Australian Courts in Corporate Law, Technology Law and Intellectual Property. With cases on Trade Marks, Copyright, Defamation, Negligence, Joint Ventures and Confidential Information, it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in these areas.
-
Overview of the Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (Cth)
Australian government proposed the Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (Cth) (Bill) to enforce mandatory reporting of ransomware payments. Penalties of up to $110,000 for non-compliance.
-
International businesses subject to Australian privacy laws
Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) Commissioner Falk determined how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will assess if international entities have an Australian Link to Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
-
Shareholder oppression – combined effects add up
A Court decision has highlighted the consequences of oppressive conduct between majority shareholders. Learn more about the case and the implications for understanding interactions between company members by reading this blog post.
-
Hermès sues artist over NFT “Birkin” bags
Explore the implications of virtual artworks created with the help of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and how this has caused a legal battle between a renowned fashion house and an American artist. Learn more about the copyright and trade mark infringement issues, and the implications of this case for the future of digital art.
