Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment)

The case of Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited revolves around a defamation claim brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten Pty Limited, the broadcaster of a special edition of The Project programme. Lehrmann alleges that the broadcast and online publication of the programme, which implied he raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019, defamed him. The dispute was highly publicised, given the broader context of the events and the individuals involved. The court had to determine whether the programme identified Lehrmann as the subject of the defamatory imputations, and if not, whether those with special knowledge of Lehrmann understood the publication to be about him. Additionally, the court examined whether the defamatory imputations were substantially true, and whether the defence of qualified privilege applied. The court also considered other defences, such as common law justification and common law qualified privilege.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included the identification of Lehrmann in the broadcast, the substantial truth of the imputations, and the applicability of statutory qualified privilege. The court examined whether the broadcast identified Lehrmann, considering the views of those with special knowledge and the nature of the imputations. The substantial truth defence required the court to assess whether the elements of rape, as understood by the ordinary viewer, were proven. The court also evaluated whether the respondents acted reasonably in publishing the defamatory matter, thereby determining if the defence of statutory qualified privilege was applicable.

The court concluded that while the broadcast did not explicitly name Lehrmann, those with special knowledge reasonably understood the publication to concern him, thus satisfying the identification requirement. The court found that the defence of substantial truth was established, as the evidence demonstrated that Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins, fulfilling the requirements for proving rape. The court also determined that the respondents did not act reasonably in publishing the defamatory matter, thereby negating the defence of statutory qualified privilege. As a result, the court found in favour of Lehrmann on the defamation claim, though the defence of substantial truth precluded an award of damages. The court ordered judgment for the respondents on the statement of claim, with costs submissions to be filed by the parties.