Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited

There are no real winners in this litigation.

The result is best characterised as the respondents overcoming a misconceived claim in relation to a broadcast because they were able to prove at trial the substantial truth of what the contemporaneous material demonstrates they considered to be the less substantial allegation made in the broadcast.

1. The primary judge made findings against all parties. Notwithstanding judgment in the respondents' favour, aspects of their case failed, including in relation to his Honour's consideration of the justification defence. All parties now claim the primary judgment contains errors. The appellant alleges several errors, with the respondents conceding he has arguable grounds. The respondents each allege further errors (particularly Ms Wilkinson (see [47])), including in relation to the finding of justification. That the respondents do so by raising notices of contention rather than a cross-appeal does not alter the character of the allegations in the notices, even though they do not fall for determination unless the appellant establishes his appeal.
2. In all the circumstances, I do not accept the respondents' submissions that there is no public interest, in the relevant sense, in the appeal.
3. Sixth, as Ms Wilkinson recognised, this application is in a context where the appellant has a right of appeal: FCA Act s 24(1). See also HBSY v Lewis [2024] HCA 35 at [98]. In that circumstance, the appellate process is a fundamental aspect of the administration of justice.