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
-
Valuing your contribution to a joint venture
This article provides an overview of the considerations when entering into a Joint Venture, including inputs, outputs, legal and tax implications of different Joint Venture vehicles. Get the facts you need to make an informed decision.
-
Social media policies are a necessity for large companies – Fair Work Australia
The case of Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Limited [2011] FWA 8444 highlights the importance of having a clear social media policy. Mr Stutsel’s dismissal for making derogatory comments on Facebook was deemed unfair, as the company lacked a formal policy on social media use. This case serves as a reminder that businesses should implement…
-
What exactly is securities hawking?
This article examines Section 736 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibits security hawking. It outlines exemptions, consequences, definitions and further references.
-
Client guide to cutting legal costs
Dundas Lawyers offers eleven tips to help clients save on legal fees while still getting quality advice. Learn how to get the most out of your legal strategy and avoid costly surprises with their guide.
-
Raising capital without disclosure
This article explains the rules under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for raising capital in Australia without a formal disclosure document, such as a prospectus. It covers exceptions like the “20/12 rule” for small-scale offerings and other exemptions for specific investors. The article also highlights key provisions, restrictions on advertising, and ASIC’s role in regulating…
-
What is a Twitter follower worth?
This legal case could have far-reaching implications for the value of social media followers and connections. Find out what this dispute between Phonedog and Noah Kravitz could mean for employers and employees in the future.
-
Can employers be liable for employees’ criminal actions?
This article summarises the tests used to determine if an employer is liable for an employee’s dishonest conduct, with reference to Ffrench V Sestili; Sestili v Triton Underwriting Insurance Agency P/L [2007] SASC 241. Recommendations are provided to help employers reduce potential liability.
-
St Andrews Day Mens’ Dinner 27 November 2011 – Brisbane Australia
At the 2011 Saint Andrews Day dinner, the Scottish community of Brisbane gathered to commemorate the patron saint. Malcolm and Peter Burrows, Rob “Mac” Kropp and Mark “Mac” Harley showed their Scottish pride in traditional attire. The festivities ended with heartfelt appreciation for the organising committee.
-
Directors and associates may be personally liable for SGC and PAYG
The Federal Government introduced legislation increasing director liability for non-compliance with Pay as you go (PAYG) and Super guarantee charge (SGC). The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) expanded recovery powers. Click through to learn more and ensure compliance.
