Lisa Wilkinson has hit again at her employer, Channel 10, within the newest skirmish over her estimated $2 million in authorized prices for separate illustration in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial.
The TV broadcaster’s choice to rent her personal authorized workforce for the defamation trial and ask her employer to pay for it, in addition to spending $4 million on Channel 10’s personal case, has sparked rigidity behind the scenes for months.
Ten’s barrister, Matt Collins KC, has argued in submissions that Wilkinson “was not entitled to incur prices in respect of her separate pursuits as she happy on the belief that Community Ten would finally decide up the invoice”.
In response, Wilkinson’s authorized workforce argues that Ten’s submissions “impermissibly search to reagitate that difficulty” that she received by means of a cross declare.
When Wilkinson warned the Ten Community final 12 months that she would file a cross declare for authorized prices, her employer initially agreed it was liable to indemnify her in opposition to an award of damages or prices and for “affordable authorized prices”.
Nonetheless, a dispute arose over whether or not the prices — which had already reached $700,000 earlier than the trial — have been affordable or concerned duplication. The prices are actually anticipated to run to round $2 million, with Channel 10’s personal prices operating to round $4 million.
On February 14, Justice Michael Lee dominated that Wilkinson’s choice to rent her personal silk and solicitors was affordable and he or she received the battle – however the wrangling wasn’t over.
“In all circumstances it was affordable for Ms Wilkinson to retain separate attorneys,’’ Justice Lee mentioned in February, 2024.
“And accordingly, the query turns into the place can we go from there.”
Nonetheless, the effective element of how a lot Ten would pay needed to wait till the result of the case, with Channel 10 finally successful the reality defence, with Bruce Lehrmann declared a rapist on the steadiness of possibilities.
Mr Lehrmann is an unemployed legislation scholar and there are doubts over his capability to pay any authorized prices order, which is but to be determined by Justice Lee.
Wilkinson ‘hysterical’ over authorized charges
Throughout the cross declare, the Federal Courtroom heard Wilkinson was “nearly hysterical” and “sobbing” final 12 months as she detailed her fears she must promote her multimillion-dollar Cremorne mansion to pay her authorized charges. That was in line with her boss, Community Ten CEO Beverley McGarvey.
The bitter battle behind the scenes over Wilkinson’s choice to rent prime defamation silk Sue Chrysanthou SC and her personal authorized workforce was detailed in emails and texts tendered within the Federal Courtroom.
The brand new trove of court docket paperwork additionally 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 “eliminated” as an everyday host on The Mission.
In a briefing notice ready for Ten’s authorized workforce, Ms McGarvey particulars a “difficult” name she had with the community star on June 7, 2023.
“Lisa was very upset and emotional and it was a really difficult name,” McGarvey wrote.
“She was nearly instantly upset and began speaking about authorized charges and the way she must promote her home.
“I’d say her tone was nearly hysterical.”
However the Ten CEO then made a sequence of observations concerning the worth of her Cremorne household residence.
“She is being paid by us on full wage, and lives in a lavish multimillion greenback residence with a pool and a tennis court docket and harbour views, so I hope this isn’t an actual danger,” she mentioned.
“She requested if we might pay for her charges and this got here up again and again within the dialog. I advised her to speak with Nick, her supervisor.”
Wilkinson’s Logies speech, which sparked a delay to the prison trial, was central to the authorized argument, with the host arguing she was given the inexperienced mild by Ten’s attorneys to present the speech.
She then mentioned was shocked that her employer refused to publicly element the recommendation upon which she was performing.
Consequently, she mentioned she misplaced confidence within the authorized recommendation, and her employer, in safeguarding her pursuits.
The brand new submission notes that Wilkinson’s entitlement to indemnity from Ten in respect to her prices fairly incurred in defending the applicant’s declare in opposition to her has now been established by judgment of the court docket on her cross-claim.
“What stays to be decided is the quantum of the sum payable by Ten to Ms Wilkinson.”
It’s understood that, within the absence of any settlement between Ten and Wilkinson, the court docket intends to refer that query to a referee for an inquiry and report, an method with which Wilkinson agrees.
“As to the applicant’s prices legal responsibility to Ms Wilkinson, his declare having failed, then within the regular course prices would observe the occasion, which means he’s liable in respect of Ms Wilkinson’s prices.
“Topic to any opposite order being made, it’s recognised that if such an order is made, the quantum of the applicant’s legal responsibility in respect of Ms Wilkinson’s prices would fall to be decided on a party-party foundation.
“Ms Wilkinson has, nevertheless, her indemnity from Ten in respect of prices incurred by her in defending the applicant’s motion. That being so, Ten (because the indemnifying social gathering) is subrogated to the rights of the indemnified social gathering (Ms Wilkinson) to recuperate her prices from the applicant, and should stand in her sneakers and train these rights: Coshott v Woollahra Municipal Council [2008] NSWCA 176 at [12].
“On that foundation, there could strictly be no want for an order for prices in opposition to the applicant in Ms Wilkinson’s favour.
“As an alternative, Ten could search and acquire its personal order in opposition to the applicant for fee by him to Ten of the proportion of the quantity which Ten is obliged to pay Ms Wilkinson which represents the quantum, as decided, of the inter partes prices as between the applicant and Ms Wilkinson.”
The matter returns to the Federal Courtroom on Could 1.