- May 20, 2019
- 11,880
- 33,657
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
This is a separate civil action by Reynolds.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 12
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 11 Winner: denisp
Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba
- Thread starter HurleyHepsHird
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Dec 7, 2001
- 22,866
- 7,457
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I read she is.
- May 20, 2019
- 11,880
- 33,657
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
It's never been about the money. Even Reynolds has said that.
IMHO this is all about power politics and revenge at its most base and distasteful level.
The step-by-step personal destruction by someone with power - a Federal Senator - of her former junior staffer who was raped in our Federal Parliament by another of Reynolds staffers. A rape victim with ongoing mental health issues who, five full years after the event, has finally had her rape claims vindicated in a court of law but now faces yet another round of court room shame and the high chance of complete financial ruin and personal destruction at the hands of her former boss.
All for two social media posts, the content of which almost no one are even aware of and which go nowhere near the vile hatred and politically motivated bias that I'm sure Reynolds and every current and former Federal Minister gets on a weekly basis. And certainly no where near as misogynistic and vile as Ms Higgins was receiving since allegations of her rape first surfaced and is still receiving on various social media platforms every hour of every day even now her rape has been vindicated.
It is a proven fact that victims of sexual assault find precious little support for them at all stages of the Australian criminal justice system. Their perpetrators rarely face the inside of a court room to answer for their crimes and rarer still get convicted.
But for those with power and the financial means our justice system is able to be weaponised to wreak personal revenge and financial ruin. Make no mistake, Reynolds is not the first politician and former Minister to use our justice system for that purpose and she won't be the last.
It says a lot about the values and power structures underpinning our society.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 9,159
- 7,307
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,611
- 12,004
- AFL Club
- Richmond
and i love it that you believe her.
- Dec 7, 2001
- 22,866
- 7,457
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
ha ha........weeeellll.
- May 20, 2019
- 11,880
- 33,657
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard.
Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard this morning.
As part of their efforts to recover their legal costs from Lehrmann, Network 10 was allowed to issue a notice to produce aimed at finding out if the ex-Liberal staffer had financial backers.
In answer to the notice to produce, Lehrmann’s solicitor told the court that there was no agreement between Lehrmann and any other parties to pay his lawyers’ fees.
“There is none such agreement, there is only an agreement between my firm and the applicant,” Mr Svilans said.
“That agreement makes no reference to any third party.”
Justice Lee added that the agreement stated that Lehrmann only had to pay his lawyers if he won the lawsuit.
(i.e. a no win no fee agreement)
“So it was a conditional costs agreement whereby there’s no obligation to pay the amount of costs in event the proceedings were unsuccessful,” Justice Lee told the court.
Justice Lee will now hand down a decision on the payment of Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson’s legal bills - and he is due to hand down his costs judgment on Friday afternoon at 2.15pm.
Justice Lee previously told the court late that there would be a costs order in Ten’s favour.
This is likely to be the last court hearting on the Lehrmann defamation trial, unless he goes ahead with an appeal (highly unlikely).
He has lost his defamation action and his legal team - whose fees must be close to $1m - have born the financial cost of that failure. Not sure where Channel Ten will get payment from either, assuming Lehrmann has spent the $455,000 he got from reaching settlement with the ABC and NewsCorp.
www.theage.com.au
Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard this morning.
As part of their efforts to recover their legal costs from Lehrmann, Network 10 was allowed to issue a notice to produce aimed at finding out if the ex-Liberal staffer had financial backers.
In answer to the notice to produce, Lehrmann’s solicitor told the court that there was no agreement between Lehrmann and any other parties to pay his lawyers’ fees.
“There is none such agreement, there is only an agreement between my firm and the applicant,” Mr Svilans said.
“That agreement makes no reference to any third party.”
Justice Lee added that the agreement stated that Lehrmann only had to pay his lawyers if he won the lawsuit.
(i.e. a no win no fee agreement)
“So it was a conditional costs agreement whereby there’s no obligation to pay the amount of costs in event the proceedings were unsuccessful,” Justice Lee told the court.
Justice Lee will now hand down a decision on the payment of Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson’s legal bills - and he is due to hand down his costs judgment on Friday afternoon at 2.15pm.
Justice Lee previously told the court late that there would be a costs order in Ten’s favour.
This is likely to be the last court hearting on the Lehrmann defamation trial, unless he goes ahead with an appeal (highly unlikely).
He has lost his defamation action and his legal team - whose fees must be close to $1m - have born the financial cost of that failure. Not sure where Channel Ten will get payment from either, assuming Lehrmann has spent the $455,000 he got from reaching settlement with the ABC and NewsCorp.
Lehrmann’s no-win, no-fee agreement with lawyers revealed in court
Network Ten sought access to documents revealing whether the former Liberal staffer had financial assistance in bringing his multimillion-dollar defamation case.
Last edited:
<Makes note not to use Mark O'Brien legal in future defamation actions>
Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard.
Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard this morning.
As part of their efforts to recover their legal costs from Lehrmann, Network 10 was allowed to issue a notice to produce aimed at finding out if the ex-Liberal staffer had financial backers.
In answer to the notice to produce, Lehrmann’s solicitor told the court that there was no agreement between Lehrmann and any other parties to pay his lawyers’ fees.
“There is none such agreement, there is only an agreement between my firm and the applicant,” Mr Svilans said.
“That agreement makes no reference to any third party.”
Justice Lee added that the agreement stated that Lehrmann only had to pay his lawyers if he won the lawsuit.
(i.e. a no win no fee agreement)
“So it was a conditional costs agreement whereby there’s no obligation to pay the amount of costs in event the proceedings were unsuccessful,” Justice Lee told the court.
Justice Lee will now hand down a decision on the payment of Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson’s legal bills - and he is due to hand down his costs judgment on Friday afternoon at 2.15pm.
Justice Lee previously told the court late that there would be a costs order in Ten’s favour.
This is likely to be the last court hearting on the Lehrmann defamation trial, unless he goes ahead with an appeal (highly unlikely).
He has lost his defamation action and his legal team - whose fees must be close to $1m - have born the financial cost of that failure. Not sure where Channel Ten will get payment from either, assuming Lehrmann has spent the $455,000 he got from reaching settlement with the ABC and NewsCorp.
Lehrmann’s no-win, no-fee agreement with lawyers revealed in court
Network Ten sought access to documents revealing whether the former Liberal staffer had financial assistance in bringing his multimillion-dollar defamation case.
- May 20, 2019
- 11,880
- 33,657
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
Well, Lehrmann did warn them on national TV:
'Beware the man who has nothing to lose'.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,133
- 17,707
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
Hands up all those that think that this may be technically true but also complete and utter bullshit.Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard.
Bruce Lehrmann did not have secret financial backers funding his failed defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, a court has heard this morning.
As part of their efforts to recover their legal costs from Lehrmann, Network 10 was allowed to issue a notice to produce aimed at finding out if the ex-Liberal staffer had financial backers.
In answer to the notice to produce, Lehrmann’s solicitor told the court that there was no agreement between Lehrmann and any other parties to pay his lawyers’ fees.
“There is none such agreement, there is only an agreement between my firm and the applicant,” Mr Svilans said.
“That agreement makes no reference to any third party.”
Justice Lee added that the agreement stated that Lehrmann only had to pay his lawyers if he won the lawsuit.
(i.e. a no win no fee agreement)
“So it was a conditional costs agreement whereby there’s no obligation to pay the amount of costs in event the proceedings were unsuccessful,” Justice Lee told the court.
Justice Lee will now hand down a decision on the payment of Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson’s legal bills - and he is due to hand down his costs judgment on Friday afternoon at 2.15pm.
Justice Lee previously told the court late that there would be a costs order in Ten’s favour.
This is likely to be the last court hearting on the Lehrmann defamation trial, unless he goes ahead with an appeal (highly unlikely).
He has lost his defamation action and his legal team - whose fees must be close to $1m - have born the financial cost of that failure. Not sure where Channel Ten will get payment from either, assuming Lehrmann has spent the $455,000 he got from reaching settlement with the ABC and NewsCorp.
Lehrmann’s no-win, no-fee agreement with lawyers revealed in court
Network Ten sought access to documents revealing whether the former Liberal staffer had financial assistance in bringing his multimillion-dollar defamation case.
Also does this mean his lawyers are on the hook for 10/Wikinsons legal bills or does their contract with Lehrman only cover his side?
I find it hard to believe the law firm would take this on without assurances from a 3rd party.
I would assume 10's lawyers have their assurances from 10. It is up to 10 to recover the costs - not their lawyers.
Ar what point does the legal profession ask itself some very hard questions?
The answer is it never does
The answer is it never does
DapperDon
Custom title:
- Oct 4, 2006
- 32,990
- 53,276
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- PHX Suns, Leeds Utd, Celtics FC
I think Ice-Wolf meant are Bruce's laywers up for the courts & CH10 lawyer costs or is Bruce.
I'd be stunned if any lawyer took on a case where they'd not only not be paid if they lost but they'd also cover any costs in lost defamation
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,133
- 17,707
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
Yeah that's what I was getting at, it appears that Bruce's lawyers if we take their words at face value have made some pretty stunning calls already in regards to the case so it's a valid question.
We also cannot rule out that Bruce's lawyers get paid "somehow" for representing Bruce but when it comes to further costs for the defendants lawyers this "somehow" does not exist.
Every player in this sorry saga has already been proven to be dodgy as ****.
Every player in this sorry saga has already been proven to be dodgy as ****.
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,611
- 12,004
- AFL Club
- Richmond
”generally”
See, it's not that hard to tweet the basic facts without making half the population think there are no circumstances where your legal firm would take on your case no matter how meritorious.
If I couldn't remember being sexually assaulted and my workplace denied be being able to see footage of what might have happened to me unless I was pressing charges, I'd be upset too.
I'm not saying this is Reynolds doing anything wrong, but another sign of a terrible system at work against the victim. Why would you deny a drunk victim the right to view what might have happened to them. And how can Parliament as an employer deny their employee access to that vision, regardless of AFP involvement?
Did Reynolds and the Government not have the ability to help Higgins see what had happened to her?
Reynolds' behaviour continues to be punitive, in my opinion, which suggests she likely wouldn't have lifted a finger to help in the past either.
I would guess that Lehrman would really want to appeal the ruling so that it can't be presented as fact in his Toowoomba criminal trial. But with having to pay the legal fees as penalty, he'll be broke. Nobody will take it on as no-win no-fee and surely even Channel 7 would have to stay out of it.
He'll have a hard enough time funding his criminal defence, let alone the criminal defence as well as a Supreme Court appeal. But without the Supreme Court appeal, the criminal defence would have all sorts of problems.
I'm not saying this is Reynolds doing anything wrong, but another sign of a terrible system at work against the victim. Why would you deny a drunk victim the right to view what might have happened to them. And how can Parliament as an employer deny their employee access to that vision, regardless of AFP involvement?
Did Reynolds and the Government not have the ability to help Higgins see what had happened to her?
Reynolds' behaviour continues to be punitive, in my opinion, which suggests she likely wouldn't have lifted a finger to help in the past either.
I would guess that Lehrman would really want to appeal the ruling so that it can't be presented as fact in his Toowoomba criminal trial. But with having to pay the legal fees as penalty, he'll be broke. Nobody will take it on as no-win no-fee and surely even Channel 7 would have to stay out of it.
He'll have a hard enough time funding his criminal defence, let alone the criminal defence as well as a Supreme Court appeal. But without the Supreme Court appeal, the criminal defence would have all sorts of problems.
- Nov 17, 2007
- 18,703
- 22,937
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I read today that he'll run screaming to AFSA to declare bankruptcy as he hasn't "worked" since 2021.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,848
- 15,076
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I appreciate that you're taking a break from this. And I'll hold my attack on your post until then.
But I really hope you didn't deliberately mislead with this post, and then opt-out in the knowledge that you were manipulating the narrative. And that you genuinely feel that this has become too much of an obsession for you, that you need to distance yourself for a period of time for clarity, sanity or any other benefits.
And I'm sorry if any of my posts have had any impact on you outside of this forum. I wish you well.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,848
- 15,076
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
This is such a great post, thank you.
In the weeds we forget objectivity like this.
‘course he will.
Similar threads
