Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 1226

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 1226

Given the appellant's impecuniosity, the seriousness of the findings against him, the existence of arguable grounds of appeal, and the public interest in permitting him to challenge the findings of criminal conduct, it would not be just to order security for costs as it would stultify the appeal. The stay of the costs order was warranted because the balance of convenience favoured the appellant, as proceeding with enforcement would likely render him bankrupt and impede the appeal, while no relevant prejudice to the respondents was identified.

Parties
Appellant: Bruce Lehrmann; First Respondent: Network Ten Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Lisa Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Stay of Costs Order) Pending Appeal
Outcome
Security for costs refused; stay of costs order granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Stay of Costs Order, Appeal Rights, Public Interest, Impecuniosity
Practice and Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Stay of Costs Order Appeal Rights Public Interest Impecuniosity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 45 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Lehrmann

Appellant

Network Ten Pty Limited

First Respondent

Lisa Wilkinson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Stay of Costs Order) Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders for security for costs should be made against an impecunious natural person appellant in a defamation appeal
  2. 2 Whether the costs order below should be stayed pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Given the appellant's impecuniosity, the seriousness of the findings against him, the existence of arguable grounds of appeal, and the public interest in permitting him to challenge the findings of criminal conduct, it would not be just to order security for costs as it would stultify the appeal. The stay of the costs order was warranted because the balance of convenience favoured the appellant, as proceeding with enforcement would likely render him bankrupt and impede the appeal, while no relevant prejudice to the respondents was identified.

Court Disposition

Security for costs refused; stay of costs order granted

Orders

  • The interlocutory application of the respondents dated 21 June 2024 is dismissed.
  • Order 2 of the primary judge made on 27 June 2024 in proceeding NSD 103 of 2023, by which the appellant is to pay the first respondent $2,000,000, is stayed until the appeal in proceeding NSD 701 of 2024 is determined.