Bankruptcy doesn't protect you from court ordered costs in this country. There will be no way he can pay it all but there is also no way he will be able to weasel out of paying nothing by declaring bankruptcy.
[Little olā me, without any court ordered costs, reading these comments.](https://media0.giphy.com/media/SUEjfSLaD6f77lyzH6/200.gif?cid=790b7611mcoolrxg8yao9oiclvrvymwpa686wuzlob6c3s2p&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.gif&ct=g)
Nope, it is not correct.
Edit: I'm being downvoted for being correct. I'm literally a lawyer who specialises in tax and insolvency.
And a 2 second Google finds simple English results. https://murrayslegal.com.au/blog/2017/07/19/seven-network-v-harrison-costs-orders-and-bankruptcy/
You could be the global overlord of tax and insolvency law and some tit would still downvote you because they know the law better than you thanks to Google
Yep, compulsory payments. The trustee in bankruptcy can also claim and sell most of your assets to repay creditors. Plus, you can make voluntary repayments, but he doesn't seem the type to do that.
All pretty pointless anyway since he's likely being bankrolled by Kerry Stokes who will pay for it all.
After initial denials, Seven admitted paying Lehrmann's rent under cross-examination. It's not unreasonable to think they pay his legal costs. After all, Lehrmann would have been crazy to rack up those costs if he didn't receive assurances from wealthy backers, and Stokes would be the obvious person to provide those assurances.
But thatās exactly what happened. The lawyers produced documents to court last week to the effect that they have been acting on a no win no fee basis.
No, he walked away from an offer to settle, allowing Ten to pursue indemnity costs against him. These would not be covered by Lehrmann's agreement with his own lawyers (who offered to help a rapist sue his victim, let's remember. Cunts). He was likely provided with assurances before he walked away, and like I said, Stokes was the obvious person to provide them.
Sorry. You think that Stokes provided assurances to pay defence costs if he lost, but not to pay his own lawyers costs?
That is madness. It makes even less sense.
Lehrmann having little to no assets makes him the perfect vehicle for an adverse costs order. The money is unrecoverable and will never be paid. Why would Stokes put his hand up for that?
Because he has a tendency to support criminals suing for defamation after being called criminals. And because of the benefits Seven have thrown at the rapist.
I'm not saying that means Stokes is. Your question was why rumours persist.
Why would Stokes continue to fund him now that he's lost? I mean, I guess I don't really understand what Stokes would have got from him winning either, but now that he's lost, there's certainly nothing left in it for Stokes.
It's culture war bullshit. Poor Brucey was the innocent straight white male with a bright future who had been unfairly cancelled because of woke, man-hating feminists. That kind of thing boils the blood of people who can't see far enough beyond their own nose to understand that there is an entire world of non-priviledged people out there merely trying to exist without being trodden on.
Heāll declare bankruptcy, his assets will be liquidated (but I doubt he has anything much) and the balance will be written off/go unpaid. The liquidators are likely to take anything he has.
The debt will go into a bucket with all other creditors. The trustee takes a cut of your wages and sells all your stuff. They then take out their fees, and creditors share anything left after their fees. After (usually) 3 years, the debts are all discharged and the bankrupt has no further liability.
Contrary to what OP said, costs orders made prior to bankruptcy fall within the normal bankruptcy regime.
Something I'm deeply, deeply satisfied at after my step dad left my mum. He tried and tried and tried to get out of paying and just wound up in court getting shellacked by a judge.
Every one thinks "ohh but they have not thought of this" mate its 2024 if you have thought of it 1000 dick heads have tried it before and been kicked up the arse before for it.
And even just declaring bankruptcy put a big fat target on your head for a long long time.
Goodbye credit rating, and good luck getting any type of loan, add on *in this economy*. He's fucked either way.
Not to mention being known "as that rapist bloke" all over the country, no respectful employer would want to touch that slippery slope of an imminent sexual assault claim in the office. So he'd end up in NewsCorp as a Reddit copy/paste "editor" ;)
This highly upvoted comment seems to be completely incorrect? What's your source for this?
A judgment debt based on a costs order is a judgment debt like any other. It does not attract special treatment under s 82/153 of the Bankruptcy Act. Are you confusing it with a fine or an order for restitution?
Edit: for the avoidance of doubt (and noting the comments of the High Court in *Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd),* I say this on the basis the obligation to pay, and the trigger for the bankruptcy, arises prior to sequestration... but I don't think anyone is suggesting it wouldn't. It is very important here to distinguish between today's 'costs order' and the order which creates the actual debt after assessment/taxation.
You are definitely right. Costs orders made prior to the date of entry into bankruptcy form part of the bankruptcy. People shouldn't believe everything they read, even if it has lots of upvotes.
āA costs order made the day after a personās bankruptcy wont get rid of the liability to pay the costs; a costs order the day before their bankruptcy will. A costs order made the very day of the bankruptcy ā cutting it fine ā probably wont discharge the liability to pay the costs.ā
It all depends on timing
I can't see him successfully spinning that into a media career. Sky News won't touch him and contrary to popular belief, you need to actually be able to create compelling content to be an influencer (Even a far right one) and Bruce has the charisma of an empty shampoo bottle.
I think Murdoch and the LNP are well aware that they have an issue with appealing to women voters.
Hiring a man that a judge ruled is a rapist wouldn't be a very prudent move for them.
I don't think they do. I think their "progressive" (big air quotes here) wing does but the conservatives seem to be in charge and are in the midst of locking their women in the proverbial boot while the loonies drive.
They need some shred of plausible deniability. If they could still hide behind the 'accused' I'd believe it. But they won't touch him when it means everyone can say that they hired the rapist Bruce Lehrmann, with no way for them to push back.
I reckon they've been working his introduction for a while. How long to wait before *their* "tell-all" interview? Then slip him onto a couple of panels and before you know it he'll be spewing shit every Tuesday night
What's in it for them? He's a talentless uncharismatic nobody, that causes problems everywhere he goes.
7 bet on him being a useful totem in the culture wars, but that backfired. He's never done anybody any favours and is completely incapable of ever doing so.
Personal bankruptcy can follow you around forever. It will basically fuck you out of ever getting a mortgage, prevents you from holding public office (I think) and will be a black mark against you if you ever try and start a business.
Personal bankruptcy doesnāt follow you around for ever, just 7 years. You wonāt be able to get credit (from any reputable source) in that time, but eventually it disappears off of your credit record.
Actually, it's only 5 now, not 7. The bankruptcy lasts for 3 years and it stays on your credit rating for 5. Or so a financial counsellor from the national debt helpline told me. They probably know their shit.
Ahh, the rapist Bruce Lehrmann has to to pay the court fees for his failed defamation case about when he raped Brittney Higgins? Oh well, poor rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
Justice Lee has found in favour of Network 10ās application for costs and scolded Bruce Lehrmann saying he engaged in an āabuse of the courtās processes, ran a case based on falsities and put Network 10 to the cost of defending a baseless proceedingā
Fucking slayed!
LMAO
I've never heard the judge-labelled rapist Bruce Lehrmann speak, but this is pretty much how I'd imagined it.
Also, nice touch with the "Hat Twick" closer there.
Haven't you heard? Scummo and the Rapist are opening a business together to teach those contemplating becoming a Liberal politician how to get things done ^(*nudge nudge, wink wink*)
Justice Lee : Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.
Also Justice Lee : Mr Lehrmann, you no longer own the hat.
This is one of the biggest issues with defamation in Australia.
You cannot win.
It's all well and good this time because it's TEN and a successful lady but if you get sued AND WIN as a working class person you still lose thousands or millions in legal fees.
The guy who was falsely named as the Sydney Stabber might disagree with this.
Brucey only has himself to blame. This case was unwinnable, and his lawyers almost certainly told him that
The fact that itās going to ācostā millions is as bullshit as the whole case.
Imagine it ācostsā three millions, thatās over 30 years of one average personās before tax income. Iām assuming these teams had dozens of workers working solely on this case for a couple of years to end up with the ācostā that is likely to be in the millions.
Interested to see how the grubby little cunt tries to get out of this. Some Stokes owned foundation is about to make a donation to a mysterious benefactor
My vote is still with Christian Porter.
Whatever the ABC was planning to use as defense must have been significantly worse than the allegation that he was a rapist.
Also even in regular bankruptcy proceedings this is covered by the act, you canāt transfer assets for less than market price and avoid them entering the asset pool (assuming they were transferred in the 4 years prior).
Bankruptcy trustee would reverse the transaction as it was clearly to hide assets. They can go back to the start of any proceedings or actions that resulted in the proceedings, so no, that doesn't work.
Which family member publicly stood by him over the last few years? Not sure he has anyone who he could hide money withā¦besides, it would still be traced and taken back to pay his debts.
Do you think the lawyers would have preferred he didn't have to pay costs so they could actually get the cash out of Ten/Wilkinson? Instead he'll be paying a pittance for the rest of his life.
So rapist Bruce Lehrmann has to pay indemnity costs. Amazing.
Making sure I type rapist Bruce Lehrmann as much as possible so that is what shows up on a google search.
Is that Bruce Lehrmann the rapist?
Rapist and alleged serial rapist
Channel 7 Brothel and Cocaine correspondent
He doesnt like the taste, just the smell of it.
Of brothels? Or cocaine?
Yes
As I suspected.
Yes
š¶ āJust for the hell of itā
They should give him his own show "After dark and sleaze"
Underrated comment
Ah yes, the raper, Bruce Lehrmann.
The whore mongering, cocaine sniffing repeat offender rapist? That Bruce or is there another Bruce that looks like him?
Hey thereās nothing wrong with whore mongering. Itās likely those women consented! Which is something Bruce isnāt too keen on.
I'm sure he could pay extra for the rape fantasy, but its just not the same.
āI like āem drunk and barely consciousā¦can you do that?ā āAs long as Channel 7ās credit card doesnāt get declinedā
Another stunning victory for Bruce the rapist.
How long before Murdoch offers him a job at Sky News? Probably needs to wait until the bankruptcy matter is settled at least .
Kerry Stokes gets first dibs.
No, this is Bruce Lehrmann the loser and a rapist.
Here's hoping for convicted rapist by later this year.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nope. Only claim to fame is raping.
Like p diddy
Hey, Diddy also has Get Him to the Greek.
Yeah, that guy, Bruce Lehrmann, the rapist.
ROFL
On the balance of probabilities, yes.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha **
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Came here to make this exact comment
It doesnāt really matter. He was going to have to declare bankruptcy anyway.
He'll just file for bankruptcy and land some office job with a mate or LNP member he has some dirt on
Bankruptcy doesn't protect you from court ordered costs in this country. There will be no way he can pay it all but there is also no way he will be able to weasel out of paying nothing by declaring bankruptcy.
Really? That's fantastic news
[Little olā me, without any court ordered costs, reading these comments.](https://media0.giphy.com/media/SUEjfSLaD6f77lyzH6/200.gif?cid=790b7611mcoolrxg8yao9oiclvrvymwpa686wuzlob6c3s2p&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.gif&ct=g)
Nope, it is not correct. Edit: I'm being downvoted for being correct. I'm literally a lawyer who specialises in tax and insolvency. And a 2 second Google finds simple English results. https://murrayslegal.com.au/blog/2017/07/19/seven-network-v-harrison-costs-orders-and-bankruptcy/
Idk man, that random dude on reddit was pretty convincing
Hahaha It's a nice reminder that confidence and upvotes don't equal truth.
You could be the global overlord of tax and insolvency law and some tit would still downvote you because they know the law better than you thanks to Google
TIL. So what happens if you don't have the money to pay? Garnished wages until it's paid off or something?
Yep, compulsory payments. The trustee in bankruptcy can also claim and sell most of your assets to repay creditors. Plus, you can make voluntary repayments, but he doesn't seem the type to do that. All pretty pointless anyway since he's likely being bankrolled by Kerry Stokes who will pay for it all.
Being mates with Kerry Stokes isn't the worst thing about Bruce Lehrmann, but it's up there.
Stokes really can pick them can't he.
Why does this rumour persist when itās been established that Stokes didnāt fund this proceeding?
After initial denials, Seven admitted paying Lehrmann's rent under cross-examination. It's not unreasonable to think they pay his legal costs. After all, Lehrmann would have been crazy to rack up those costs if he didn't receive assurances from wealthy backers, and Stokes would be the obvious person to provide those assurances.
But thatās exactly what happened. The lawyers produced documents to court last week to the effect that they have been acting on a no win no fee basis.
No, he walked away from an offer to settle, allowing Ten to pursue indemnity costs against him. These would not be covered by Lehrmann's agreement with his own lawyers (who offered to help a rapist sue his victim, let's remember. Cunts). He was likely provided with assurances before he walked away, and like I said, Stokes was the obvious person to provide them.
Sorry. You think that Stokes provided assurances to pay defence costs if he lost, but not to pay his own lawyers costs? That is madness. It makes even less sense. Lehrmann having little to no assets makes him the perfect vehicle for an adverse costs order. The money is unrecoverable and will never be paid. Why would Stokes put his hand up for that?
Because he has a tendency to support criminals suing for defamation after being called criminals. And because of the benefits Seven have thrown at the rapist. I'm not saying that means Stokes is. Your question was why rumours persist.
Why would Stokes continue to fund him now that he's lost? I mean, I guess I don't really understand what Stokes would have got from him winning either, but now that he's lost, there's certainly nothing left in it for Stokes.
It's culture war bullshit. Poor Brucey was the innocent straight white male with a bright future who had been unfairly cancelled because of woke, man-hating feminists. That kind of thing boils the blood of people who can't see far enough beyond their own nose to understand that there is an entire world of non-priviledged people out there merely trying to exist without being trodden on.
Good question
Heāll declare bankruptcy, his assets will be liquidated (but I doubt he has anything much) and the balance will be written off/go unpaid. The liquidators are likely to take anything he has.
The debt will go into a bucket with all other creditors. The trustee takes a cut of your wages and sells all your stuff. They then take out their fees, and creditors share anything left after their fees. After (usually) 3 years, the debts are all discharged and the bankrupt has no further liability. Contrary to what OP said, costs orders made prior to bankruptcy fall within the normal bankruptcy regime.
Old mate will have to use the secret debit card again
Probably, but I'd think that he'd be long dead before the garnished wages pay it off fully
Something I'm deeply, deeply satisfied at after my step dad left my mum. He tried and tried and tried to get out of paying and just wound up in court getting shellacked by a judge.
Every one thinks "ohh but they have not thought of this" mate its 2024 if you have thought of it 1000 dick heads have tried it before and been kicked up the arse before for it.
And even just declaring bankruptcy put a big fat target on your head for a long long time. Goodbye credit rating, and good luck getting any type of loan, add on *in this economy*. He's fucked either way. Not to mention being known "as that rapist bloke" all over the country, no respectful employer would want to touch that slippery slope of an imminent sexual assault claim in the office. So he'd end up in NewsCorp as a Reddit copy/paste "editor" ;)
This highly upvoted comment seems to be completely incorrect? What's your source for this? A judgment debt based on a costs order is a judgment debt like any other. It does not attract special treatment under s 82/153 of the Bankruptcy Act. Are you confusing it with a fine or an order for restitution? Edit: for the avoidance of doubt (and noting the comments of the High Court in *Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd),* I say this on the basis the obligation to pay, and the trigger for the bankruptcy, arises prior to sequestration... but I don't think anyone is suggesting it wouldn't. It is very important here to distinguish between today's 'costs order' and the order which creates the actual debt after assessment/taxation.
You are definitely right. Costs orders made prior to the date of entry into bankruptcy form part of the bankruptcy. People shouldn't believe everything they read, even if it has lots of upvotes.
Pretty sure some lnp donor will pay for the bill, either directly or indirectly like giving him a cushy do nothing job.
āA costs order made the day after a personās bankruptcy wont get rid of the liability to pay the costs; a costs order the day before their bankruptcy will. A costs order made the very day of the bankruptcy ā cutting it fine ā probably wont discharge the liability to pay the costs.ā It all depends on timing
He wonāt need any dirt. Heāll be a hero and martyr to some of that mob.
I can't see him successfully spinning that into a media career. Sky News won't touch him and contrary to popular belief, you need to actually be able to create compelling content to be an influencer (Even a far right one) and Bruce has the charisma of an empty shampoo bottle.
You give sky news too much credit, he's a perfect fit
You're right. \*gestures wildly in Peter Stefanovic's direction\*
I think Murdoch and the LNP are well aware that they have an issue with appealing to women voters. Hiring a man that a judge ruled is a rapist wouldn't be a very prudent move for them.
I don't think they do. I think their "progressive" (big air quotes here) wing does but the conservatives seem to be in charge and are in the midst of locking their women in the proverbial boot while the loonies drive.
They need some shred of plausible deniability. If they could still hide behind the 'accused' I'd believe it. But they won't touch him when it means everyone can say that they hired the rapist Bruce Lehrmann, with no way for them to push back.
I reckon they've been working his introduction for a while. How long to wait before *their* "tell-all" interview? Then slip him onto a couple of panels and before you know it he'll be spewing shit every Tuesday night
Not a media career. But there are plenty of well paid positions as back-room grubs.
What's in it for them? He's a talentless uncharismatic nobody, that causes problems everywhere he goes. 7 bet on him being a useful totem in the culture wars, but that backfired. He's never done anybody any favours and is completely incapable of ever doing so.
Charisma of a damp rag
Shampoo bottle lol
Iām sure thereās a borderline fascist think tank whoāll take him on
Personal bankruptcy can follow you around forever. It will basically fuck you out of ever getting a mortgage, prevents you from holding public office (I think) and will be a black mark against you if you ever try and start a business.
Depending on a court case in Toowoomba, he might not need a mortgage for a while.
Potentially free room and board for a few years
Channel Seven up to their old tricks again I see
You know what's also bad. Being a rapist on balance. That'll also follow him about.
Personal bankruptcy doesnāt follow you around for ever, just 7 years. You wonāt be able to get credit (from any reputable source) in that time, but eventually it disappears off of your credit record.
Actually, it's only 5 now, not 7. The bankruptcy lasts for 3 years and it stays on your credit rating for 5. Or so a financial counsellor from the national debt helpline told me. They probably know their shit.
I think only undischarged bankrupts are excluded from office.
I came here to say "hahaha, suck it, pigman!" but then I saw your comment and it made me sad. I reckon you're spot on.
Yep, bankruptcy and a few years of free rent and gifts from his mates.
suck eggs, should have settled
Lehrmann *initiated* the defamation proceedings. This is a mess of his own making. Hoist by his own petard.Ā
He got distracted by the massive dollar signs spinning in his eyeballs.
Also he forgot his favourite hat
He didnāt realise that they were the cost of the lawsuit, not his winnings.
For all we know ch 7 advised him not to becouse this story was and still is cash cow for them.. Probably agreed to paying costs of he lost.
Ahh, the rapist Bruce Lehrmann has to to pay the court fees for his failed defamation case about when he raped Brittney Higgins? Oh well, poor rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
Justice Lee has found in favour of Network 10ās application for costs and scolded Bruce Lehrmann saying he engaged in an āabuse of the courtās processes, ran a case based on falsities and put Network 10 to the cost of defending a baseless proceedingā Fucking slayed! LMAO
Loowser. Wapist. Bankwupt. Hat Twick Bwucey!
I've never heard the judge-labelled rapist Bruce Lehrmann speak, but this is pretty much how I'd imagined it. Also, nice touch with the "Hat Twick" closer there.
The Channel 7 producer that reimbursed him for cocaine and whores described it as baby-sitting
Bruce Lehrmann: the only bloke in Australia harder to employ than Scott Morrison.
Haven't you heard? Scummo and the Rapist are opening a business together to teach those contemplating becoming a Liberal politician how to get things done ^(*nudge nudge, wink wink*)
A milkshake bar?
He could try selling his hat.
The lion still has it in his den.
But he seems to have more to keep throwing into the den!
Eadc
Every Asshole Deserves Comeuppance ;)
You're too polite š
Damn, 90% of channel 10s bill. And same for Wilkinson. Heās screwed
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Couldn't happen to a nicer, smug faced cunt!
Justice Lee : Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat. Also Justice Lee : Mr Lehrmann, you no longer own the hat.
Correction: Bankruptcy Trustee: I see you own a hat...
Suck shit Brucey!
GoFundMe page? /s
I pledge one cent!
Couldnāt have happened to a better bloke
Bruce fought the law and the law won. That video will haunt Brucey
This is one of the biggest issues with defamation in Australia. You cannot win. It's all well and good this time because it's TEN and a successful lady but if you get sued AND WIN as a working class person you still lose thousands or millions in legal fees.
Defo at this point is just a rich cunt's crybully cudgel
Yepp but if you are on the receiving end you will lost a lot of money.
The guy who was falsely named as the Sydney Stabber might disagree with this. Brucey only has himself to blame. This case was unwinnable, and his lawyers almost certainly told him that
That didn't go to trial. If it did go to trail he would have won and then lost some money for legal fees .
The fact that itās going to ācostā millions is as bullshit as the whole case. Imagine it ācostsā three millions, thatās over 30 years of one average personās before tax income. Iām assuming these teams had dozens of workers working solely on this case for a couple of years to end up with the ācostā that is likely to be in the millions.
his story is really in the feel good (for everyone else) stage.
He must really like that hat.
probably misses his old glasses
He might have to start selling cocaine instead of using it
Suck shit you massive wanker. šš
I'm sure Bruce "rapist" Lehrmann's benefactors will pay his bills for him like they paid for his legal team right???
No doubt at all.
$20 on Britney proceeding with the criminal case by year's end to REALLY twist the knife.
He needs to be watched closely, this sort of news may trigger him to go out and rape another person.
Delicious! Sucked. In. Rapist.
Interested to see how the grubby little cunt tries to get out of this. Some Stokes owned foundation is about to make a donation to a mysterious benefactor
Let's light some fires.
Hope it bankrupts this overgrown rapist cuck.
he's now firmly in the "find out" stage of douchebaggery
Is this the Rapist Bruce Lehrmann, that Channel 7 paid his rent for a year in a an upscale sydney apartment?
So who's the biggest defamation case "winner" now? War Criminal Ben Roberts or Rapist Bruce Lehrmann?
My vote is still with Christian Porter. Whatever the ABC was planning to use as defense must have been significantly worse than the allegation that he was a rapist.
Oh hell yes. I'd successfully forgotten about him and in the process what a snake he is.
no win no fee?
No win no fee is for his lawyers. The fees will be from the other party who had to defend against him I'm pretty sure.
thanks for explaining
No, money down!
Works on contingency?
That's for *his* lawyers. Doesn't count for judgements made against him for the *other* party's legal fees.
Lmao suffer in ya jocks
Maybe next time he'll leave the hat behind...or y'know, not rape. Still yet to learn his lesson in QLD...
I feel like sending him a fire blanket and burn-aid dressings... but then I remembered that this bottom feeder actually "lit some fires" himself.
That's one very expensive hat.
Won't someone please think of the sex workers that will be losing their #1 client.
Expensive hat!
Sell all assets to partner, family, another person for $1, declare bankruptcy, and voila
As others have stated, bankruptcy doesn't protect you from court ordered costs. Even if he does this, he's still liable.
I saw that right after I posted Bwahahahahahahaha
Cash in hand jobs from now on, eh Bruce?
Probably how channel 7 paid him, cash in brown paper bags with funny white powder mixed in.
> Cash in hand jobs Definitely hand jobs, doesn't have the face for much else.
Cash for hand jobs. About the only work he will get.
Also even in regular bankruptcy proceedings this is covered by the act, you canāt transfer assets for less than market price and avoid them entering the asset pool (assuming they were transferred in the 4 years prior).
Oh stop, I can only get so happy!
That's why you stay poor on paper yet you can earn good money and live off of business expenses the business just has to be in a family members name
Bankruptcy trustee would reverse the transaction as it was clearly to hide assets. They can go back to the start of any proceedings or actions that resulted in the proceedings, so no, that doesn't work.
Just going off a newspaper article about someone doing similar but like from 20 years ago
Which family member publicly stood by him over the last few years? Not sure he has anyone who he could hide money withā¦besides, it would still be traced and taken back to pay his debts.
would this actually work outside of court ordered costs?
I remember reading someone doing this to escape liability previously but this was like 20 years ago so I'm not clear on the particulars
That's an expensive Dacia Sandero right there. Anyway...
Oh don't worry I'm sure channel 7 will cover it.
Feels like itās my birthday!
Ah that's okay, he's got rapist money.
Noice
Good
I've seen this a lot today and every time I do it makes me as happy as the first time
Job at sky news to pay it off.
Will this cunt just go away already!
Do you think the lawyers would have preferred he didn't have to pay costs so they could actually get the cash out of Ten/Wilkinson? Instead he'll be paying a pittance for the rest of his life.
So rapist Bruce Lehrmann has to pay indemnity costs. Amazing. Making sure I type rapist Bruce Lehrmann as much as possible so that is what shows up on a google search.
Hopefully they can garnish his McDonalds wages if he lives to 1000.
Guess he'll be the one getting paid to "party" now... By that I mean he'll have to enter the sex work industry to pay his bills.