Legal professionals representing TV character Lisa Wilkinson are preventing to settle a $700,000 authorized dispute with Community 10 earlier than the bombshell Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial involves an finish.
Ms Wilkinson launched proceedings within the Supreme Court docket in opposition to her employer final month over authorized payments associated to the defamation go well with, during which each are named as respondents.
The disagreement centres round whether or not the invoice must be settled instantly and whether or not it was “affordable” for Ms Wilkinson to rent authorized assist outdoors Community 10’s attorneys.
Michael Elliott SC, representing Ms Wilkinson, informed the court docket on Friday the TV character was allegedly “relying” on recommendation from the community’s personal attorneys when she employed outdoors assist.
“We expressed issues whether or not the attorneys appearing for Community 10 may correctly act for us (Ms Wilkinson) as a result of that they had acted in opposition to our curiosity in relation to this dispute,” he mentioned.
“Channel 10 advised she acquire recommendation from the senior counsel nominated by Channel 10 as as to if it was applicable for her to be individually represented, and his recommendation was that it was.”
The allegation comes as Community 10 seeks to maneuver the dispute from the Supreme Court docket to the Federal Court docket, the place it could hyperlink as much as the continued defamation trial that restarted this week.
Ms Wilkinson and Community 10 are being sued by Mr Lehrmann within the Federal Court docket over her 2021 interview with Brittany Higgins, which aired on night TV present The Venture.
Ms Wilkinson is being represented on the trial by high-profile defamation lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC and Anthony Jefferies as a substitute of utilizing Community 10s retained legislation agency.
In line with paperwork filed within the NSW Supreme Court docket, Ms Wilkinson claims the nationwide broadcaster is refusing to pay two authorized invoices value $353,538 and $370,017.
Community 10 said in court docket paperwork that since February it had repeatedly informed Ms Wilkinson that non-public “separate authorized illustration … was pointless, and never in her finest pursuits.”
Within the paperwork, Community 10 acknowledged that whereas Ms Wilkinson was entitled to rent her personal authorized illustration, it was not liable to pay prices which might be “unreasonably incurred”.
Community 10’s lawyer, Ian Pike, argued that in shifting the case the choose presiding over the defamation trial, Justice Michael Lee, may rule on whether or not the surface authorized assist was “affordable”.
Such a transfer, Mr Pike mentioned, wouldn’t solely keep away from “contradictory” findings by the 2 courts however would enable the continued authorized charges accrued by Ms Wilkinson to be handled unexpectedly.
“Justice Lee should – he is already mentioned as a lot – decide on the finish of the case whether or not it’s ‘affordable and correct’ for her to have employed outdoors illustration,” Mr Pike mentioned.
“If one appears to be like at what has been filed (within the defamation suite), there isn’t any materials distinction within the defences of Ms Wilkinson and Community 10. There is no such thing as a cause for them to be separate.
“What we mentioned to Ms Wilkinson is that for those who want to preserve separate illustration, that’s as much as you, however we is not going to be paying for it,” he added earlier than Mr Elliott audibly sighed.
For his half, Mr Elliott informed the court docket that “they need to pay us cash, the query is how a lot” and the duplication of any work finished could possibly be mentioned in the course of the settling of the invoice.
The choose listening to the applying questioned with what authorized framework Justice Lee would choose Ms Wilkinson’s resolution if Mr Lehrmann proved unsuccessful.
“His Honour does seem to take note of the prices ideas that govern court docket proceedings between events and the entire principals about litigation, case administration,” she mentioned.
“My concern is the problems raised right here concern employment legislation, which doesn’t appear to be the identical points {that a} trial choose will decide.”
The choose will give her judgment in a while Friday.
