"Quick and dirty" is how Justice Michael Lee said he wanted to rule on costs in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case last week.
His aim was to save everybody's money.
But the truth is there has been nothing quick about it, and it is far from over — especially with an appeal looming.
But at least Mr Lehrmann knows where he stands.
Justice Lee has ordered him to pay Network Ten $2 million for legal costs run up during his failed defamation case.
We now know that was a significant discount, with Ten having already parted with more than $3.6 million dollars to pay its lawyers.
The network successfully defended the defamation action from Bruce Lehrmann over an interview with Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021.
In that interview, Ms Higgins alleged she'd been raped inside Parliament House in 2019 — and although she didn't name Mr Lehrmann, he said he was easily identifiable from the story and therefore had been defamed.
The court agreed, but Justice Lee found that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins.
Truth is a defence in defamation, so Network Ten won the case.
Mr Lehrmann had taken on the network, and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, after his criminal trial over the alleged rape was abandoned, leaving no findings against him.
The exercise last week was something of a polite fiction, since nobody thinks Bruce Lehrmann will ever be able to pay the costs.
But money will have to change hands.
Ten ordered to pay Wilkinson an initial $558,548, as further costs determined
The real battle over costs is between Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten, after the journalist hired separate lawyers but wanted Ten to pay for them.
That has been fought over tooth and nail.
At the heart of it all is the Logies speech Ms Wilkinson gave when she won an award for her interview with Ms Higgins, just days out from the planned start date of Mr Lehrmann's criminal trial.
The speech, and the reporting of it, led to a delay in the trial because of concerns about the jury.
The court heard Ms Wilkinson's speech had been cleared by Ten's lawyers.
Justice Lee was scathing in his assessment of lawyer Tasha Smithies's advice, given Mr Lehrmann's trial was imminent.
"For reasons which defy commonsense, Ms Smithies thought Ms Wilkinson faced a binary choice: to continue to endorse the credibility of the complainant in a pending sexual assault trial; or to act in a way that would be perceived as 'wavering' in supporting her credibility," Justice Lee said.
"As an experienced media lawyer, Ms Smithies should have been alive to the concept of sub judice contempt of court and that it can occur when a publication, as a matter of practical reality, tends to interfere with the course of justice in a particular case."
The network did send a letter apologising to the court, but Justice Lee said there was no mention of the fact the speech had been given on considered advice.
Ten eventually conceded Lisa Wilkinson was entitled to her own representation and that it was obliged to pay towards that.
But the network is continuing to dispute what are common or separate costs.
It is already known Ms Wilkinson is seeking $1.8 million.
Ten has been ordered by the court to pay an initial $558,548.30 to Ms Wilkinson, but the rest is to be determined by a referee, who will report to the court by October.
The next directions hearing in the case is not due until November.
The referee will also look into a claim for costs by former Seven Network producer Taylor Auerbach, whose sensational evidence about "babysitting" Mr Lehrmann to convince him to appear on the Spotlight program saw the case reopened in April.
Mr Lehrmann's plans for appeal
But the elephant in the room is, of course, Mr Lehrmann's plans for an appeal.
He has claimed in court documents that there was a lack of procedural fairness in his defamation trial.
The three judges who will sit on the case haven't even been appointed yet, but it already faces several hurdles.
It is unclear if Mr Lehrmann has legal representation, since he filed the appeal documents himself.
Then there will be the matter of security of costs, likely to be demanded by Network Ten to ensure that if Mr Lehrmann loses, he can pay the legal fees.
And so far there is no date even for a directions hearing.
Posted, updated
