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
-
Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue
This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.
-
Overview of negligence claims in domestic building disputes
A domestic building contract gone wrong: Cerda v Jacob [2020] QCATA 57 highlights the difficulties homeowners face when contracts don’t comply with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act (Qld) 1991, leading to issues with enforcing the contract and asserting rights to quality works or remedy defective construction.
-
Ending a domestic building contract
Ending a domestic building contract can be complicated. Discover the requirements for a home warranty insurance claim and the implications of the Harper Property Builders Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QCATA 70. Find out how to navigate a building contract “divorce” with good faith.
-
Think twice before claiming delay due to COVID-19
In response to COVID-19, the Federal Court of Australia has adopted virtual proceedings and is reluctant to grant stays or adjournments. Read this article to learn more about the Court’s view and the pros and cons of virtual trials.
-
Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted
Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?
-
Arbitration clauses in building disputes
The QCAT decision of 4D Electrical Qld v Greyburn Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 74 shows arbitration can be a more efficient alternative to Court/tribunal litigation. Courts uphold contractual obligations agreed to by parties, proving arbitration is a viable option.
-
Particulars – their importance in civil litigation
This article provides an overview of the Federal Court’s rules and procedures for preliminary discovery, which allows potential applicants to determine if there is a good cause of action before filing a claim. Learn how to navigate the process and understand the Court’s expectations.
-
COVID-19 relief measures for companies
The Federal Government has passed a package of temporary measures to support businesses and relieve financial distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Find out how these measures could affect your business and what you need to know.
-
$750k awarded for fake online reviews
The Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer in the case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, demonstrating the serious consequences of posting fake reviews online. Find out more about the implications of this case and alternative legal actions for companies that receive negative reviews.
