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
-
Introduction to the Trusts Bill 2025 (Qld)
On 1 May 2025, the Trusts Bill 2025 (Qld) (Bill) passed its final reading before the Queensland Parliament and, at the date of this article, awaits royal assent. When in force, the Bill will completely replace the current Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) (Act) to reflect the recommendations of the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s 2013 review of the…
-
QITC IT contracts framework an introduction
In August 2017, the Queensland Government introduced the Queensland Information Technology Contracting (QITC). The QITC framework replaces the Government Information Technology Contracting (GITC) framework. It was designed for the purpose of guiding all Queensland Government Information and Communications Technology (ICT) contracts.
-
What are unrealised capital gains?
An unrealised capital gain refers to an increase in the value of an asset that has not yet been sold or disposed of. In Australia, capital gains are taxed on assets which have increased in value when they are sold and the gain is realised, however the proposed Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions)…
-
Scam Prevention Framework – key business impacts
On 13 February 2025, the Australian Parliament passed the Scams Prevention Framework 2025 (Cth) (Act) in response to the national “scam pandemic” that has purportedly cost the country billions of dollars over the past few years. The Act amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and other related Acts. The amendments to the…
-
Labor to abolish non-compete clauses from 2027
On 25 March 2025, the Albanese Labor government announced in its 2025-26 Budget (Budget), that it intended to abolish non-compete clauses in employment contracts for approximately three (3) million workers from 2027.
-
Understanding contributory liability in patent infringement
In Australia, the Patent Act 1990 (Cth) provides protection for inventors by preventing others from using, making, or selling patented inventions without permission. The Act also extends liability to parties that are not directly infringing patents but may contribute to or enable patent infringement by supplying a product.
-
Shareholders’ rights to inspect books under s 247A Corporations Act
A shareholder of a company can apply to the Court seeking an order that it be provided with access to the company’s books and records under certain circumstances, provided that the shareholder is acting in good faith and seeking inspection for a proper purpose.
-
Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression
Shareholder oppression, or minority shareholder oppression, is generally thought to occur when the majority shareholders misuse their power to oppress or control the minority.
-
Damages for misleading conduct by competitors under ACL
Section 236 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) entitles any person, including corporations – to claim compensation for loss or damage suffered from misleading or deceptive conduct. The High Court has developed numerous general principles for assessing loss or damage which we will discuss in this article.
