Network 10 has described the defamation case judgment against Bruce Lehrmann as a "triumph for truth".
In the Federal Court, Justice Michael Lee found that, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann had raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House.
Lehrmann, a former Liberal staffer, had sued 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson last year over an interview with Higgins.
Network 10 said the case was about truth.
"Justice Lee has found that Network 10 prevailed in proving that Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape were true," Network 10 said.
“This judgment is a triumph for truth.
“Justice Lee’s judgment is vindication for the courageous Brittany Higgins who gave a voice to women across the nation.
“Network 10 is considering Justice Lee’s 324-page judgment. It is clear however that Australia’s defamation laws remain highly restrictive.
“When put to the test, it was always our obligation to inform the public of these important social and political matters notwithstanding the challenges presented by these laws and today’s judgment vindicates the telling of Brittany’s story.
“Network 10 remains firmly committed to honest, fair and independent journalism; to holding those in power to account; to giving people a voice who wouldn’t otherwise have one; and to always pursuing without fear or favour, journalism that is firmly in the public interest.”
Brendan Clift, lecturer of law, The University of Melbourne, says Australian defamation law has historically favoured plaintiffs and, despite recent rebalancing attempts, it remains a favoured legal weapon for those with the resources to use it.
"This includes our political class, who sue their critics for defamation with unhealthy frequency for a democracy. In the United States, public figures don’t have it so easy: to win they must prove their critics were lying," he said.
"In Australia, the media sometimes succeeds in proving truth, but contesting defamation proceedings comes at great financial cost and takes an emotional toll on the journalists involved.
"Nor can a true claim always be proven to a court’s satisfaction, given the rules of evidence and the fact that sources may be reluctant to testify or protected by a reporter’s guarantee of confidentiality.
"But this case demonstrates that publishers with an appetite for the legal fight can come out on top."
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.