Lisa Wilkinson has hit back at her employer, Channel 10, in the latest skirmish over her estimated $2 million in legal costs for separate representation in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial.
The TV broadcaster’s decision to hire her own legal team for the defamation trial and ask her employer to pay for it, as well as spending $4 million on Channel 10’s own case, has sparked tension behind the scenes for months.
Ten’s barrister, Matt Collins KC, has argued in submissions that Wilkinson “was not entitled to incur costs in respect of her separate interests as she pleased on the assumption that Network Ten would ultimately pick up the bill”.
In response, Wilkinson’s legal team argues that Ten’s submissions “impermissibly seek to reagitate that issue” that she won through a cross claim.
When Wilkinson warned the Ten Network last year that she would file a cross claim for legal costs, her employer initially agreed it was liable to indemnify her against an award of damages or costs and for “reasonable legal costs”.
However, a dispute arose over whether the costs — which had already reached $700,000 before the trial — were reasonable or involved duplication. The costs are now expected to run to around $2 million, with Channel 10’s own costs running to around $4 million.
On February 14, Justice Michael Lee ruled that Wilkinson’s decision to hire her own silk and solicitors was reasonable and she won the fight – but the wrangling wasn’t over.
“In all circumstances it was reasonable for Ms Wilkinson to retain separate lawyers,’’ Justice Lee said in February, 2024.
“And accordingly, the question becomes where do we go from there.”
However, the fine detail of how much Ten would pay had to wait until the outcome of the case, with Channel 10 ultimately winning the truth defence, with Bruce Lehrmann declared a rapist on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Lehrmann is an unemployed law student and there are doubts over his capacity to pay any legal costs order, which is yet to be decided by Justice Lee.
Wilkinson ‘hysterical’ over legal fees
During the cross claim, the Federal Court heard Wilkinson was “almost hysterical” and “sobbing” last year as she detailed her fears she would have to sell her multimillion-dollar Cremorne mansion to pay her legal fees. That was according to her boss, Network Ten CEO Beverley McGarvey.
The bitter battle behind the scenes over Wilkinson’s decision to hire top defamation silk Sue Chrysanthou SC and her own legal team was detailed in emails and texts tendered in the Federal Court.
The new trove of court documents also reveals the TV host had a $100,000 annual wardrobe allowance, which was then slashed to $40,000 after November 18, 2022, when she was “removed” as a regular host on The Project.
In a briefing note prepared for Ten’s legal team, Ms McGarvey details a “challenging” call she had with the network star on June 7, 2023.
“Lisa was very upset and emotional and it was a very challenging call,” McGarvey wrote.
“She was almost immediately upset and started talking about legal fees and how she would have to sell her house.
“I would say her tone was almost hysterical.”
But the Ten CEO then made a series of observations about the value of her Cremorne family home.
“She is being paid by us on full salary, and lives in a lavish multimillion dollar home with a pool and a tennis court and harbour views, so I hope this is not a real risk,” she said.
“She asked if we would pay for her fees and this came up over and over again in the conversation. I told her to talk with Nick, her manager.”
Wilkinson’s Logies speech, which sparked a delay to the criminal trial, was central to the legal argument, with the host arguing she was given the green light by Ten’s lawyers to give the speech.
She then said was shocked that her employer refused to publicly detail the advice upon which she was acting.
As a result, she said she lost confidence in the legal advice, and her employer, in safeguarding her interests.
The new submission notes that Wilkinson’s entitlement to indemnity from Ten in respect to her costs reasonably incurred in defending the applicant’s claim against her has now been established by judgment of the court on her cross-claim.
“What remains to be determined is the quantum of the sum payable by Ten to Ms Wilkinson.”
It is understood that, in the absence of any agreement between Ten and Wilkinson, the court intends to refer that question to a referee for an inquiry and report, an approach with which Wilkinson agrees.
“As to the applicant’s costs liability to Ms Wilkinson, his claim having failed, then in the normal course costs would follow the event, meaning he is liable in respect of Ms Wilkinson’s costs.
“Subject to any contrary order being made, it is recognised that if such an order is made, the quantum of the applicant’s liability in respect of Ms Wilkinson’s costs would fall to be determined on a party-party basis.
“Ms Wilkinson has, however, her indemnity from Ten in respect of costs incurred by her in defending the applicant’s action. That being so, Ten (as the indemnifying party) is subrogated to the rights of the indemnified party (Ms Wilkinson) to recover her costs from the applicant, and may stand in her shoes and exercise those rights: Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWCA 176 at [12].
“On that basis, there may strictly be no need for an order for costs against the applicant in Ms Wilkinson’s favour.
“Instead, Ten may seek and obtain its own order against the applicant for payment by him to Ten of the proportion of the amount which Ten is obliged to pay Ms Wilkinson which represents the quantum, as determined, of the inter partes costs as between the applicant and Ms Wilkinson.”
The matter returns to the Federal Court on May 1.
