Lehrmann Defamation Appeal Dismissed
On 3 December 2025, the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by Bruce Lehrmann against a 2024 decision by a single judge of the Federal Court, which found that he was not defamed by Channel TEN and journalist Lisa Wilkinson. This page outlines the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and why it is significant.
Background
Lehrmann had sued Channel TEN and Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over an interview with Brittany Higgins that aired on the television show The Project in 2021. During the interview, Higgins gave an account of a sexual assault by a senior staffer in Parliament House in 2019.
Lehrmann was not named in the interview, but shortly afterwards was identified as the alleged rapist. He was charged with rape, and a trial was commenced in 2022. However, as a result of juror misconduct, the trial was discontinued meaning that no finding was made against Lehrmann.
He sued for defamation, arguing that the content broadcast contained imputations that he had raped Higgins, and that these imputations could not be justified.
The Federal Court decision
Justice Lee found that the broadcast was clearly capable of identifying Lehrmann. However, it ruled against him on the basis that the material that had been broadcast was substantially true.
On the balance of probabilities, the court found, the evidence supported the imputation that Lehrmann had raped Higgins, despite no finding of guilt being recorded during the criminal trial.
The court found that some minor details of Higgins’ account were not sufficiently established, such as her account of saying ‘no’ a number of times. Accordingly, it found that there had been non-consensual sex in circumstances where Lehrmann ‘did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on’.
The appeal grounds
Lehrmann appealed against the decision, arguing four appeal grounds including that it was not open to the Federal Court to find that he raped Higgins on the balance of probabilities, and that the court ought to have found that it could not make a determination as to whether or not the sexual assault had occurred.
Network TEN asked the Full Court to uphold Justice Lee’s decision.
Wilkinson argued a number of grounds, including that Justice Lee was in error in finding that Lehrmann was merely reckless as to whether or not Higgins had been consenting to sex, and should find that he had positive knowledge that she was not consenting.
The Full Court’s decision
The court found in favour of Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson on the basis that the material broadcast was substantially true. It rejected all of Lehrmann’s appeal grounds and found that there had been none of the errors he claimed.
Furthermore, the Full Court found that the facts reasonably supported a finding that Lehrmann had actual knowledge that Higgins was not consenting to sex. In this respect, the Full Court found more strongly in favour of Network TEN and Lisa Wilkinson than had Justice Lee.
Implications of the decision
This court decision confirms that the defence of substantial truth can succeed in defamation matters where the ‘sting’ of the imputation is substantially true even where some details are incorrect. It shows that defamation appeals do not succeed lightly, and that defendants must focus on establishing the substantial truth of the core claim.
The decision also reinforces that responsible media reporting on sexual assault can be defended on the basis of substantial truth, provided the reporting reflects accurately the complainant’s account and known facts.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.