Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * ACT Bar clears former DPP head Shane Drumgold of misconduct

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[MPMonkeys]

In the millions that he doesn't have, so Ten will look elsewhere to try and get it from his backers.

Well firstly Lee hasn't made any order as to costs yet which as a general rule are usually a fraction of the actual costs.
Secondly, unless there is a formal agreement between BL and his 'backers', then I'm not sure how anyone could compel them to pay.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Well firstly Lee hasn't made any order as to costs yet which as a general rule are usually a fraction of the actual costs.
Secondly, unless there is a formal agreement between BL and his 'backers', then I'm not sure how anyone could compel them to pay.

What would be stopping someone with no money from suing another person when they've got no means to pay their own lawyers let alone the costs incurred by the other person if they lose the case?

 

[Kurve]

Well firstly Lee hasn't made any order as to costs yet which as a general rule are usually a fraction of the actual costs.
Secondly, unless there is a formal agreement between BL and his 'backers', then I'm not sure how anyone could compel them to pay.

Kerry Stokes paid the costs for Ben Roberts Smith failed defamation action, even if it was suggested he did so to avoid needing to hand over thousands of internal documents about the case.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Kerry Stokes paid the costs for Ben Roberts Smith failed defamation action, even if it was suggested he did so to avoid needing to hand over thousands of internal documents about the case.

You're comparing apples with oranges.
Stokes publicly backed BRS and I imagine there was a formal deed in place.

 

[MPMonkeys]

What would be stopping someone with no money from suing another person when they've got no means to pay their own lawyers let alone the costs incurred by the other person if they lose the case?

The short answer is . Nothing
Refer Julian Knight as an example.

 

[BFew]

What would be stopping someone with no money from suing another person when they've got no means to pay their own lawyers let alone the costs incurred by the other person if they lose the case?

Yes.

Someone must have provided a legally binding written guarantee to the courts that they would pay for Bruce's and all other parties legal costs, should he lost the case and legal costs of all parties be ordered to be paid by Bruce Lehrmann, before a full Civil Court case got very far.

 

[Kurve]

You're comparing apples with oranges.
Stokes publicly backed BRS and I imagine there was a formal deed in place.

That Stokes was backing Roberts wasn't public knowledge for some time.

On SM-G998B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MPMonkeys]

That Stokes was backing Roberts wasn't public knowledge for some time.

On SM-G998B using BigFooty.com mobile app

It was public before the trial even began - back in 2021.

 

[Kurve]

It was public before the trial even began - back in 2021.

Do you have any idea who's been backing Lehrmann?

 

[MPMonkeys]

Do you have any idea who's been backing Lehrmann?

No idea and not even sure there is a mystery backer. Just another conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories have a very bad track record in this case.

 

[faible]

No idea and not even sure there is a mystery backer. Just another conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories have a very bad track record in this case.

Lehrmann has been bankrolling his own defence then?

 

[Kurve]

No idea and not even sure there is a mystery backer. Just another conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories have a very bad track record in this case.

Lehrmann couldn't have launched this action without backing imo. Even if he found lawyers to present him pro bono which I doubt, they incur massive costs along the way.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Lehrmann couldn't have launched this action without backing imo. Even if he found lawyers to present him pro bono which I doubt, they incur massive costs along the way.

The costs are only to themselves and arguably the publicity makes up for it anyway.

Litigation gets launched all the time without backing. Julian Knight, Craig Minogue and others wouldn’t go a year in prison without trying two or three.

The fact Wilkinson is chasing Ten for costs indicates to me there is no mystery backer. It’s been an amusing myth all along.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kurve]

The costs are only to themselves and arguably the publicity makes up for it anyway.

Most of them have massive overdrafts and payments need to be made on them, staff etc, none of that simply vanishes to take time out representing someone in a defamation trial. There's all sorts of costs that stack on, just photocopying costs a fortune.

Anyway, we'll see how it plays out.

Litigation gets launched all the time without backing. Julian Knight, Craig Minogue and others wouldn’t go a year in prison without trying two or three.

Criminal v civil

I'm not across Knight and Minogue's actions but they have nothing better to do

The fact Wilkinson is chasing Ten for costs indicates to me there is no mystery backer. It’s been an amusing myth all along.

She was always going to do that imo, easier for her as well.

 

[Anja_Nees]

I’ve dealt with this issue before on this thread, and there are some wild misconceptions being ventilated. There is generally no requirement on an individual plaintiff to provide any guarantee or security for a defendant’s costs. There are regrettably plenty of individuals carrying on litigation with no ability to pay they other side’s costs.

There are very limited circumstances in which a court can order an individual provide security for costs (ie where they are a foreign resident) but generally not and that hasn’t occurred here anyway.

Security for costs can be ordered against a corporate plaintiff (but a defendant needs to apply for it, and there needs to be grounds, ie there is evidence it won’t be able to pay).

If they lose the case it usually follows the event that they will be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, but if they can’t then the party awarded the costs has the option of the usual enforcement mechanisms, including sending the sheriff to seize property and bankruptcy. Plenty of people get bankrupted over a costs order.

Regarding Lehrmann’s costs, there is speculation in the press his lawyers did it no win no fee. I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps parts of it were, and he was paid money by News Corp etc so that would have gone to the lawyers but would nowhere near covering it. A 22 day trial with silk etc on a no win no fee basis would be a huge gamble.

He probably has a benefactor of sorts who has paid his legal bill but there’s no obligation as far as the Court is concerned on them to pay Ten or Wilkinson’s costs. They would have to agree to pay them and there’s no reason they would.

There could be some true believers who would dig deep but why pay a multimillion dollar costs award when he can just be bankrupted and do his three years. It’s not jail.

With BRS I believe Stokes did indemnify him for adverse costs orders but that’s Stokes’ call alone, and BRS had assets to protect (and probably wouldn’t have sued without comfort).

 

[MrsBlueSky]

There was a story about a civil defamation case in the WA supreme court in our local paper last week. It included the defendant having to pay the applicant's costs of $1518 for a recent 90 minute hearing into the matter.
I thought that was very strange.
If the defendant wins the case at a trial set down for next March does he get that money back.
Perhaps the same thing could have happened in the Lehrmann case.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

The short answer is . Nothing
Refer Julian Knight as an example.

Wasn't he declared a vexatious litigant ?

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Lehrmann couldn't have launched this action without backing imo. Even if he found lawyers to present him pro bono which I doubt, they incur massive costs along the way.

Imo - no lawyer or barrister in their right mind would have taken on that Lehrmann vs Network 10 case on a pro bono basis.

 

[MPMonkeys]

I’ve dealt with this issue before on this thread, and there are some wild misconceptions being ventilated. There is generally no requirement on an individual plaintiff to provide any guarantee or security for a defendant’s costs. There are regrettably plenty of individuals carrying on litigation with no ability to pay they other side’s costs.

There are very limited circumstances in which a court can order an individual provide security for costs (ie where they are a foreign resident) but generally not and that hasn’t occurred here anyway.

Security for costs can be ordered against a corporate plaintiff (but a defendant needs to apply for it, and there needs to be grounds, ie there is evidence it won’t be able to pay).

If they lose the case it usually follows the event that they will be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, but if they can’t then the party awarded the costs has the option of the usual enforcement mechanisms, including sending the sheriff to seize property and bankruptcy. Plenty of people get bankrupted over a costs order.

Regarding Lehrmann’s costs, there is speculation in the press his lawyers did it no win no fee. I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps parts of it were, and he was paid money by News Corp etc so that would have gone to the lawyers but would nowhere near covering it. A 22 day trial with silk etc on a no win no fee basis would be a huge gamble.

He probably has a benefactor of sorts who has paid his legal bill but there’s no obligation as far as the Court is concerned on them to pay Ten or Wilkinson’s costs. They would have to agree to pay them and there’s no reason they would.

There could be some true believers who would dig deep but why pay a multimillion dollar costs award when he can just be bankrupted and do his three years. It’s not jail.

With BRS I believe Stokes did indemnify him for adverse costs orders but that’s Stokes’ call alone, and BRS had assets to protect (and probably wouldn’t have sued without comfort).

Good post.
Stokes and BRS arrangement was a formal loan in that Stokes would lend him the money for his action and his war medals would be used as collateral.

IMO, Ten and Wilkinson have next to zero chance of getting any money back. We don;t even know how Lee will rule in terms of the costs.

 

[Kurve]

Good post.
Stokes and BRS arrangement was a formal loan in that Stokes would lend him the money for his action and his war medals would be used as collateral.

IMO, Ten and Wilkinson have next to zero chance of getting any money back. We don;t even know how Lee will rule in terms of the costs.

Doesn't mean they won't try to flush out who may have been backing Lehrmann and put pressure on, there's a lot of money at stake and lot of press in it.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Lehrmann couldn't have launched this action without backing imo. Even if he found lawyers to present him pro bono which I doubt, they incur massive costs along the way.

Lehrmann did get payouts from ABC and Newscorp. Probably not enough to cover lawyers costs but he did have some cash that is now gone.

 

[FIGJAM]

IMO, Ten and Wilkinson have next to zero chance of getting any money back. We don't even know how Lee will rule in terms of the costs.

After one of 10's lawyers Justin Quill went on a media barrage claiming vindication of 10's articles and that they were on the whole "reasonable", Justice Lee has requested copies of transcripts and copies of in advance of the costs hearing on Wednesday.

Suffice to say, they're not off to a great start in trying to schmooze Lee to their way of thinking on costs! I fear Quill won't be mightier than Lee's sword...

I'm sure 10 are aware that their costs claim is more of a moral whack than actually getting money back. They are arguing and have argued previously in the trial, for what amounts to a type of 'aggravated damages' for costs where the applicant was "deliberately wicked and calculated" in lodging their claim.

I'm not sure Lee would have bought into this argument, even before Quill hit the media circuit.

Hopefully Lee makes the costs awarded to 10 and Wilkinson high enough to force Lehrmann into bankruptcy.

And hopefully Lee puts Quill, 10 and Wilkinson in their place with regards to their claims of 'absolute' vindication, when anyone who has paid any attention to the decision can see that they got their arse handed to them in a variety of ways.

 

[Anja_Nees]

Lehrmann did get payouts from ABC and Newscorp. Probably not enough to cover lawyers costs but he did have some cash that is now gone.

The total of the Newscorp and ABC settlements was reported as being $445k, and they were meant to be towards his legal costs of those claims, so there might not have been any surplus to help with Ten and Wilkinson.

God knows what his fees of the trial were. For barristers the rule of thumb is one day’s prep for each day of hearing. At 22 days, the senior counsel counsel was apparently $8k per day and the junior maybe $4k (x44).

The solicitors would probably crudely match the junior’s costs. Taking the low end, that would be over $700k. That’s just the trial, not the commencement of the proceeding, interlocutory fights, correspondence etc, court fees (a few grand a day, plus transcript costs etc).

Comfortably over $800k. Probably well over $1m. Maybe $2m. That’s probably all in addition to the settlements with the others.

Then you have Ten and Wilkinson, and they would be multiples of the above. Put in perspective, Sue Chrysanthou’s fees before the trial even commenced were reported to be about $700k.

People other than Lehrmann will be meeting all of the above. His solicitors and barristers might be wearing some of it. Maybe it’s Bettina Arndt’s mates that have kicked in etc.

Ten and Wilkinson will probably be left holding the bag for their own costs. They’ll probably get the joy of bankrupting Lehrmann.

 

[Anja_Nees]

After one of 10's lawyers Justin Quill went on a media barrage claiming vindication of 10's articles and that they were on the whole "reasonable", Justice Lee has requested copies of transcripts and copies of in advance of the costs hearing on Wednesday.

Suffice to say, they're not off to a great start in trying to schmooze Lee to their way of thinking on costs! I fear Quill won't be mightier than Lee's sword...

I'm sure 10 are aware that their costs claim is more of a moral whack than actually getting money back. They are arguing and have argued previously in the trial, for what amounts to a type of 'aggravated damages' for costs where the applicant was "deliberately wicked and calculated" in lodging their claim.

I'm not sure Lee would have bought into this argument, even before Quill hit the media circuit.

Hopefully Lee makes the costs awarded to 10 and Wilkinson high enough to force Lehrmann into bankruptcy.

And hopefully Lee puts Quill, 10 and Wilkinson in their place with regards to their claims of 'absolute' vindication, when anyone who has paid any attention to the decision can see that they got their arse handed to them in a variety of ways.

Never ceases to amaze how many people associated with this case have been burned, mostly by hubris.