Lehrmann says judge conducted own research, rape finding 'compromised'

His lawyers have launched an application to have the case heard in the High Court of Australia, claiming "the effect of subconscious influence cannot be dispelled".

It is Mr Lehrmann's third court bid, after previously taking the Ten Network and Lisa Wilkinson to the Federal Court claiming defamation.

In April 2024, Justice Michael Lee dismissed the first civil lawsuit, describing it as an "omnishambles".

The judge's findings that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the balance of probabilities were upheld on appeal by the Full Federal Court in December 2025.

The full court took Justice Lee's findings one step further and found Lehrmann had "actual knowledge" of a lack of consent, rather than having been reckless to Ms Higgins's consent on the night in question.

The High Court bid targets the full court's decision to uphold a substantial truth defence, finding the former Liberal staffer had not been defamed by The Project story that aired the allegations.

Mr Lehrmann now wants the High Court to set aside the decisions of Justice Lee and the full court so that he can then be paid damages.

Alternatively, he is seeking the case to return before different judges to determine whether the defence is established.

He will have to argue his case for special leave before the High Court decides to hold a full-blown hearing.

In the application for special leave, filed in January 2026, Mr Lehrmann's lawyers allege Justice Lee had conducted his own research and there was not an impartial exercise of judicial power.

"In coming to write the primary judgment, the primary judge undertook research and had obtained extraneous material not irrelevant to issues under his consideration," the document states.

This material was said to have included academic papers on rape myths and tonic immobility.

MORE DEFAMATION SAGA COVERAGE:

"The full court erred in not holding that the primary judge's findings were compromised and thereafter erred ... [in using these findings] to make its own compromised findings," the application states.

It is also argued that the finding that Mr Lehrmann had "actual knowledge" that Ms Higgins did not consent was compromised.

"The available evidence was such that no finding could be made one way or the other," the document states.

If Mr Lehrmann loses his High Court bid, he could be forced into bankruptcy due to court orders he pay a $2 million legal bill to Ten.

He has always denied sexually assaulting Ms Higgins when the pair were colleagues. No criminal findings have been made against him.

with AAP