Login
Lehrmann accuses former firm of wrongly taking $117k
In submissions that confused a judge and rendered opposing counsel speechless, Bruce Lehrmann accused his former firm of allegedly taking $117,000 out of trust when it was not entitled to.
Naomi Neilson
Appearing before the Federal Court on Friday (6 September) morning, Lehrmann’s new lawyer, Zali Burrows, said the deadline to file an amended notice of appeal had been missed because they have been trying to recover $117,000 from his former firm.
“Now the issue is that there was about $117,000 which was paid for Ten’s costs out of the trust account funds which we say was not payable on construction of the costs agreement.
“There were a lot of monies paid in respect of hearing allocation fees, filing fees, to which my client didn’t have to pay at the time because he was on Centrelink,” Burrows alleged.
In April, Justice Michael Lee found, on a civil standard of proof, Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House. Lehrmann has denied the allegations and appealed the findings.
The trust account allegation was raised not only to explain the missed deadline but also to request that Justice Wendy Abraham have a registrar expedite the issue so the money could be paid to barrister Guy Reynolds to draft the amended notice of appeal.
However, an application that went before a registrar was knocked back because of a supposed “technical error”, and Burrows said a new application would not be filed until Monday.
“What has that got to do with me?” Justice Abraham asked.
“Without any notice, you want this court, as in me, to deal with a matter … you haven’t yet filed before the registrar so you can … brief someone who can then [proceed]?”
In support of the submission, Burrows said a “third-party” solicitor also claimed $40,000 in legal costs in respect of a subpoena and it would benefit them to have the trust money issue settled.
“It is this amount of money which is a matter of urgency … which we need to be determined so I can pay that to counsel to settle the amended notice of appeal,” Burrows said.
Burrows added that in the “worst-case scenario”, she would file the amended statement of appeal she drafted herself.
The submissions also came as a shock to Network Ten’s counsel, Tim Senior, who earlier told the court Ten had no prior explanation for why Lehrmann had not filed an amended notice of appeal or filed evidence in the application for security for costs.
“We are very concerned [these submissions have] hijacked these appeal proceedings and disrupted these appeal proceedings. There is just so much uncertainty involved, I don’t really know what to say,” Senior said.
Senior went on to say the priority should be fixing up the timetable because no application had been made to the registrar. If and when it is made, Burrows can proceed with her submissions.
Ten’s primary concern was whether “100 new grounds” may be included in the amended notice of appeal, which would then have an impact on their response and the length of the proceedings.
“It’s very difficult for us to consider our position in circumstances where we’re told that counsel may or may not be briefed, there may or may not be an amended notice of appeal. We don’t know why there has been a delay after so much time,” Senior said.
Justice Abraham extended the deadline for the security of costs evidence to 6 September and the amended notice of appeal to 13 September. An application for costs was reserved.
Referring to the deadline, Justice Abraham said an “experienced practitioner” would not wait to come to court until after it was missed.
“If there is any risk of the timetable not being met, the matter should be brought before that is going to happen, as opposed to waiting for the breach to occur,” Justice Abraham said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
