Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[Festerz]

The costs will be several million and I don’t see any reason anyone would pay them on Lehrmann’s behalf. He’s got issues.

If you can't see any reason anyone for paying them then you haven't been paying attention.

Do the names Ben Roberts-Smith and Kerry Stokes ring a bell?

Billionaire Kerry Stokes' private investment vehicle paid the lion's share of the mammoth multi million dollar legal bill of former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith's failed defamation action under an indemnity clause.

There has been no revelation yet of who was bankrolling Lehrmann's actions but watch this space.

Edit. As discussed in Nine Media this morning:

"The trial is estimated to have cost at least $10 million. While Lehrmann is expected to face an order that he pay the media parties’ legal costs, he will not be able to meet that order personally."

"Sources with knowledge of the case, not permitted to speak publicly, told this masthead that Ten was considering asking the court to order an unknown third party to stump up the legal bill for Lehrmann’s failed defamation lawsuit. The application for a third-party costs order could help reveal Lehrmann’s financial backers."
Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation litigation via a private company, agreed to a third-party costs order of this kind last year.
And in the BRS defamation case Nine sought to show ACE and Seven controlled the litigation and so should be liable for their legal costs.

It sought, and was granted access to, documents from Seven West Media commercial director Bruce McWilliam, Stokes, ACE and Roberts-Smith’s legal team showing their communications about the case. At which point Stokes capitulated.

Like I said- let's see how this plays out.

‘Hell-bent on having sex’: Judge finds Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has handed down his decision in the former political staffer’s high-stakes defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Anja_Nees]

Do the names Ben Roberts-Smith and Kerry Stokes ring a bell?

Billionaire Kerry Stokes' private investment vehicle paid the lion's share of the mammoth multi million dollar legal bill of former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith's failed defamation action under an indemnity clause.

There has been no revelation yet of who was bankrolling Lehrmann's actions but watch this space.

That wasn’t under any Court rules. It’s a private indemnity. If you can find such a rule in the Federal Court Rules please provide the reference.

 

[Not Important]

bingo!

 

[Not Important]

yep!

 

[Not Important]

 

[Gough]

bingo!

When Bruce was three grams deep I bet it sounded like a great idea though.

 

[QuietB]

If you can't see any reason anyone for paying them then you haven't been paying attention.

Do the names Ben Roberts-Smith and Kerry Stokes ring a bell?

Billionaire Kerry Stokes' private investment vehicle paid the lion's share of the mammoth multi million dollar legal bill of former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith's failed defamation action under an indemnity clause.

There has been no revelation yet of who was bankrolling Lehrmann's actions but watch this space.

Edit. As discussed in Nine Media this morning:

"The trial is estimated to have cost at least $10 million. While Lehrmann is expected to face an order that he pay the media parties’ legal costs, he will not be able to meet that order personally."

"Sources with knowledge of the case, not permitted to speak publicly, told this masthead that Ten was considering asking the court to order an unknown third party to stump up the legal bill for Lehrmann’s failed defamation lawsuit. The application for a third-party costs order could help reveal Lehrmann’s financial backers."
Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation litigation via a private company, agreed to a third-party costs order of this kind last year.

‘Hell-bent on having sex’: Judge finds Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has handed down his decision in the former political staffer’s high-stakes defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

www.smh.com.au

Ben Roberts-Smith had a medal Stokes coveted though - wtf has Lehmann got?

 

[Festerz]

Ben Roberts-Smith had a medal Stokes coveted though - wtf has Lehmann got?

Bags.

 

[Not Important]

Lehrmann is not even close to bankruptcy...yet.

Apart from Channel 7 paying his rent and other expenses for the past 12 months, his defamation action has netted him $445k tax free ($295k from NewsCorp and $150k from ABC) who decided to settle with him rather than join Ten and Lisa Wilkinson in defending his defamation action in court.

As for his legal costs, Steve Whybrow SC defended the rapist in his abandoned legal trial pro-bono (surely he didn't fall for that again?) no one yet knows who under-wrote his multi- million dollar legal team for his defamation action, led by Whybrow and Matthew Richardson, SC (not to mention the multiple millions of the Ten and Wilkinson defence teams) but it sure as heck wasn't Brucey - although rest assured most of the $445k he got from the ABC and Sam Maiden will be going towards that.

Then there is the issue of court costs - including the time of Justice Lee, his associates, clerks, administrators, room fees etc.. These are also likely to be well over $1m. It is a requirement that prior to court action commencing for the equivalent of a financial guarantee to be lodged by participants of the financial capacity to meet these costs. The name on that 'guarantee' from the Lehrmann side is unlikely to be Lehrmann himself but some person or persons with deep pockets. As we saw with the costs determination for the BRS defamation trial - the name of Lehrmann's benefactors will most likely come out as Justice Lee announces his costs determination.

Nah - imho the biggest damage to Bruce Lehrmann from his failed legal action has been to completely destroy whatever remained of his personal reputation. Others will be paying the bulk of the substantial financial costs of this trial. They too will suffer reputational damage as a result.

what are the odds someone will make him a book offer?

and there will be be sufficient misogynists to make it a bestseller.

 

[Festerz]

what are the odds someone will make him a book offer?

and there will be be sufficient misogynists to make it a bestseller.

Probably. But proceeds from crime legislation and all that? (not sure how that plays out when there has been no actual conviction).

Given he has still not admitted to having had sex with Ms Higgins, all he could write about is the legal system and how hard done by he thinks he was (while treading carefully around contempt issues).

But pretty sure not even The Australian would touch that deal. And it was what the discredited Spotlight story was all about anyway.

Pity - "Liar, Liar, I set my Pants on Fire' would be a great title for a book from the guy who wanted to 'light some fires'

All that's left is to see what happens in his Toowoomba rape case now.

 

[Not Important]

When Bruce was three grams deep I bet it sounded like a great idea though.

probably. but think the grub thought he was bulletproof. and he had many peeps from the right reassuring him about that.

 

[Not Important]

Probably. But proceeds from crime legislation and all that? (not sure how that plays out when there has been no actual conviction).

Given he has still not admitted to having had sex with Ms Higgins, all he could write about is the legal system and how hard done by he thinks he was (while treading carefully around contempt issues).

But pretty sure not even The Australian would touch that deal. And it was what the discredited Spotlight story was all about anyway.

Pity - "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire' would be a great title.

that's the thing. no criminal conviction to date. still, i'm happy his life is a train wreck.

 

[Festerz]

Fun Fact.

There's some irony in the fact that the analogy used by Justice Lee yesterday about Lehrmann being the lion tamer going back into the cage to collect his hat, was first used in this defamation action by one of the Channel Ten lawyers who was criticised by Lee in yesterday's judgement.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

When Bruce was three grams deep I bet it sounded like a great idea though.

Behave yourself sir.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

what are the odds someone will make him a book offer?

and there will be be sufficient misogynists to make it a bestseller.

Forward to be written by Peta Credlin.

 

[western royboy]

Forward to be written by Peta Credlin.

Ghost Writer - Janet Albrechsten

 

[Anja_Nees]

If you can't see any reason anyone for paying them then you haven't been paying attention.

Do the names Ben Roberts-Smith and Kerry Stokes ring a bell?

Billionaire Kerry Stokes' private investment vehicle paid the lion's share of the mammoth multi million dollar legal bill of former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith's failed defamation action under an indemnity clause.

There has been no revelation yet of who was bankrolling Lehrmann's actions but watch this space.

Edit. As discussed in Nine Media this morning:

"The trial is estimated to have cost at least $10 million. While Lehrmann is expected to face an order that he pay the media parties’ legal costs, he will not be able to meet that order personally."

"Sources with knowledge of the case, not permitted to speak publicly, told this masthead that Ten was considering asking the court to order an unknown third party to stump up the legal bill for Lehrmann’s failed defamation lawsuit. The application for a third-party costs order could help reveal Lehrmann’s financial backers."
Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation litigation via a private company, agreed to a third-party costs order of this kind last year.

‘Hell-bent on having sex’: Judge finds Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has handed down his decision in the former political staffer’s high-stakes defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

www.smh.com.au

Your edit actually makes your point worse.

You said:
It is a requirement that prior to court action commencing for the equivalent of a financial guarantee to be lodged by participants of the financial capacity to meet these costs.

That’s flatly wrong. The quote in your post confirms that obviously no such guarantee was given and 10 and Wilkinson don’t seem to believe Lehrmann has an indemnity from a backer (otherwise they wouldn’t threaten seeking the order).

In the Roberts-Smith example a third party agreed to pay it.

We’ll see if they actually try to get the order that his benefactor pay. If they do try it’ll be because Bruce can’t pay it obviously.

If a benefactor volunteers to stump up the cash so be it. Not sure why they would bother. He likely has nothing to protect.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't disagree with that at all, and I doubt that such acknowledgement will come from either side.

The main point I was making was that Justice Lee's findings put Reynolds in a stronger bargaining position that she was a week ago.

Think this will be the litmus test to see if any of the participants in a post omnishambles-proclamation environment have learnt any lessons, of if they just keep on shamblin' on.

 

[BFew]

Bags.

Probably/hopefully only empty ones.

 

[western royboy]

There is no requirement to lodge a guarantee for another party’s costs. A defendant can seek security for its costs but it is rarely ordered against individuals and I’m not aware any application was made for it.

He’s likely up for the costs of two parties who each engaged silks and commercial firms to act in a 22 day trial for them. The silks alone would have been $20k each or more a day, and the rule of thumb is a day’s preparation for an each day of trial.

The costs will be several million and I don’t see any reason anyone would pay them on Lehrmann’s behalf. He’s got issues.

Call me naive but I couldn’t see how any Firm or Barrister would have taken on his case unless they had a guarantee from a third party that they were good for the $$ or they were seduced by his story which would make them idiots

 

[Anja_Nees]

Call me naive but I couldn’t see how any Firm or Barrister would have taken on his case unless they had a guarantee from a third party that they were good for the $$ or they were seduced by his story which would make them idiots

I have no doubt he has a benefactor for his own legal costs and they will have been paid.

Who pays 10 and Wilkinson’s legal costs is a totally different matter.

Edit: Daily Mail says his lawyers did it for him no win no fee. I’d be stunned if that was the case (particularly the barristers) but it’s gobsmacking if true.

 

[Festerz]

Probably/hopefully only empty ones.

 

[Festerz]

You said It is a requirement that prior to court action commencing for the equivalent of a financial guarantee to be lodged by participants of the financial capacity to meet these costs.

No that is a misquote. \You left off this sentence at the start of the paragraph:

"Then there is the issue of court costs - including the time of Justice Lee, his associates, clerks, administrators, room fees etc.. These are also likely to be well over $1m."

I was clearly and unequivocally talking about court costs NOT the costs of other parties. And so this quote from you is simply unrelated to what I said .

That’s flatly wrong. The quote in your post confirms that obviously no such guarantee was given and 10 and Wilkinson don’t seem to believe Lehrmann has an indemnity from a backer (otherwise they wouldn’t threaten seeking the order).

So give it a rest FFS.

And as far as the legal costs of Ten and Wilkinson, you clearly still can't see the similarity with the BRS case.

In the BRS defamation case and at the conclusion of the costs allocation hearing NINE sought to show ACE and Seven controlled the litigation and so should be liable for their legal costs.

It sought, and was granted access to, documents from Seven West Media commercial director Bruce McWilliam, Stokes, ACE and Roberts-Smith’s legal team showing their communications about the case. Stokes then capitulated for what some say was a fear of his full role in urging BRS to take defamation action being revealed.

Like I said lets wait and see how this plays out.

 

[Anja_Nees]

FFS give it a rest.

You still can't see it.

In the BRS defamation case and at the conclusion of the costs allocation hearing NINE sought to show ACE and Seven controlled the litigation and so should be liable for their legal costs.

It sought, and was granted access to, documents from Seven West Media commercial director Bruce McWilliam, Stokes, ACE and Roberts-Smith’s legal team showing their communications about the case. Stokes then capitulated for what some say was a fear of his full role in urging BRS to take defamation action being revealed.

Like I said lets wait and see how this plays out.

You said there was a legal requirement for litigants to guarantee other parties’ costs which very clearly doesn’t exist.

You can just admit you did not know what you were talking about.

 

[Festerz]

You said there was a legal requirement for litigants to guarantee other parties’ costs which very clearly doesn’t exist.

No I didn't - go back and read what I posted in full:

Then there is the issue of court costs - including the time of Justice Lee, his associates, clerks, administrators, room fees etc.. These are also likely to be well over $1m. It is a requirement that prior to court action commencing for the equivalent of a financial guarantee to be lodged by participants of the financial capacity to meet these costs

I was talking about court costs- a sentence you clearly ignored. A requirement to meet these costs being required to stop vexatious litigation (note the use of the words 'equivalent' to a financial guarantee). i.e. NOT an actual guarantee.

In fact my only reference to other parties' costs was in the previous paragraph where I said simply this:

(not to mention the multiple millions of the Ten and Wilkinson defence teams)

not to mention- i.e. I did not mention them.


So FFS - give it a rest.

I won't be responding to your pendency/idiocy any further.